I have barely tried to support my arguments with data out of principle, and I've still done a better job than you. Your example above is ridiculous. We are all dumber for having read that.

My claim is that the rules change is being requested BECAUSE it creates an advantage for a group, and the data suggests that gap is only going to widen as long as urbanization trends continue. You're just saying there's a chance it might not be an advantage because. You have provided no proof that it is an equitable change or that it promotes a more free society. Your only claim is that it might represent a larger group of people, which was one of the two main reasons the founding fathers wanted an EC over a DE. You continue to obfuscate the point and move goal posts as it's convenient to you. Your greatest mental attribute is clearly persistence, because the ones that should be on display in this thread are conspicuously absent.

---