3.72 times nothing is nothing. 435/310M = 1.40e-6 Seems like California is over represented. Yet, 120/36M = 3.33e-6 Seems like California is much better represented in their legislature. Maybe this big central govt. thing isn't so great after all.
So is a million times nothing or ten million times nothing. Therefore, no one can ever win a national election, since each voter has zero influence. Your math skills continue to astound. Just like when you said anything measured in parts per million can't matter. California has 12% of the US population. 12% of the representatives would be about 52. California has 53, so just barely overrepresented. I'd be in favour of abolishing the electoral college and the Senate, and recalibrating the House to properly represent each state's population. So, California would lose a representative. What does that calculation show? What's the point in dividing state legislators by state population, in the context of this discussion? Are you just doing random calculations as a distraction tactic?
Representation in the state is better than representation in the federal government. It's easier to travel to your state's capital, too - for most people. I asked why are you in love with 1984, big-brother, INGSOC style government?
Okay. Reasonable opinion, even if completely irrelevant to the discussion. I'm a big fan of death squads. State governments are generally too squeamish for that.
FWIW, the origin of the birther movement is.... The Hillery Clinton campaign of 2008. Reminiscent of Al Gore pressuring Bill Clinton on Whitewater during the 1992 Democratic Party primaries.
And you've hit the nail on the head why I don't believe it. If the Clintons couldn't find anything, then it doesn't exist. He's legit; deal with it America. If you hate his policies, vote against him and anyone who supports those policies. He's as much an American as any other citizen.
