Btw, I invite you to compare the election results with the GSP (Gross State Product) per employee Map. It fits quite well, with 9 out 10 highest GSP/capita states voting for the Democrats (the exception being Alaska). Equally interesting, 18 out of the 21 lowest GSP/capita voted for Bush (the 3 odd ones being the almost Canadian states of Wisconsin, Vermonet and Maine ).
NB : you have to select "Unit of Measure" = per employee, and click on "Draw".
If New England, New York, New Jersey, Pensilvania, Maryland, Delaware and D.C. formed an independent state, it would account for 24,6% of the USA's GDP.
If California, Oregon, Washigton and Hawaii formed their owned country, they would withdraw 17,2% from the USA's GDP (13,4% only for California).
Add to this Minesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Illinois (altogether 11,5% of US GDP) and the Democratic states would account for 63,3% of the current US's GDP. So, even if in term of electoral votes, these 20 states represent less than half the US, in terms of GDP, they account for almost 2/3 (which of course means the GDP/capita is much higher than in the 30 Bushist states).
If we consider that Texas, Florida, Georgia and Ohio make up 19% of the US GDP, that leaves the remaining 26 states only 17,7% of the GDP. And note that results were quite tight in Ohio and Florida (even Texas compared to other Republican states).
Why should the richer states be governed by the will of the poorest, least populated states, just because the electoral system gives them a higher proportional weight ? Why should the richer, more educated American of the big cities by governed by a minority a country people whose only advantadge is to occupy a bigger landmass ? That is exactly what happened now and in 2000. How comes Democratic American do not rebel and leave this 17,7% care about themselves with Bush as their leader ? That wouldn't be the first time a country split in two (or more) because the richest part didn't want to pay the taxes to support the poorer. And in this case this richer part is even governed by the poorer ! How comes nobody feels more strongly about this blatant injustice ?
NB : you have to select "Unit of Measure" = per employee, and click on "Draw".
If New England, New York, New Jersey, Pensilvania, Maryland, Delaware and D.C. formed an independent state, it would account for 24,6% of the USA's GDP.
If California, Oregon, Washigton and Hawaii formed their owned country, they would withdraw 17,2% from the USA's GDP (13,4% only for California).
Add to this Minesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Illinois (altogether 11,5% of US GDP) and the Democratic states would account for 63,3% of the current US's GDP. So, even if in term of electoral votes, these 20 states represent less than half the US, in terms of GDP, they account for almost 2/3 (which of course means the GDP/capita is much higher than in the 30 Bushist states).
If we consider that Texas, Florida, Georgia and Ohio make up 19% of the US GDP, that leaves the remaining 26 states only 17,7% of the GDP. And note that results were quite tight in Ohio and Florida (even Texas compared to other Republican states).
Why should the richer states be governed by the will of the poorest, least populated states, just because the electoral system gives them a higher proportional weight ? Why should the richer, more educated American of the big cities by governed by a minority a country people whose only advantadge is to occupy a bigger landmass ? That is exactly what happened now and in 2000. How comes Democratic American do not rebel and leave this 17,7% care about themselves with Bush as their leader ? That wouldn't be the first time a country split in two (or more) because the richest part didn't want to pay the taxes to support the poorer. And in this case this richer part is even governed by the poorer ! How comes nobody feels more strongly about this blatant injustice ?
Last edited: