Sorry, but land mass just doesn't mean much.

I am not so sure of this one.

After all he thinks the US and France kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon. And that JOBS is a three letter word.

I'm sorry to pile on James, but, sorry, NO, only a moron would think that a particular side won by looking at the dominance of one color or another on those maps.

blah, I when I play Risk I alway start in China take over that side of the map and by the end of the night all them gimps are speaking Chinese.

oh sorry you said on those maps. I see them now. I need to actually start looking at the post instead of just cheeking to see what the donkakooks are blithering now.

Ill restart this as my effort into giving the the new 3rd R.... oops I mean administration a chance to show what there made of.

Because of population patterns, you’d guess that the Red team won.

I'm sorry to pile on James, but, sorry, NO, only a moron would think that a particular side won by looking at the dominance of one color or another on those maps.

As Jeff Baker and Anderson says the area on the maps represent land area--they don't represent votes.

I see an opportunity for Obama to convert, but I think it would be a mistake to assume that they are converted.

http://www.style.org/mappingvotes/

Of course, the California gubernatorial election doesn't have the 3EV-minimum distortion that our presidential election has. Neat maps, anyway.

We don't have a one acre/one vote system.

But we do have a federalist one. I'm in favor of a national popular vote for a variety of reasons but am not indifferent to the arguments for a state-by-state allocation of votes.