Republicans haven't won the popular vote in 20 years

[Walk on Water]

Of course winning the popular vote doesn't guarantee a win. I think that they should change it to popular vote. At the very least, take note of the NBA mid season tournament. They have point differential and stuff. The election should at least factor in the popular vote and at the least, give you an extra 30-50 bonus points for winning the popular vote by a certain amount.

Think about that. Even if you have all these states that are red, all of them combined don't equal the popular vote effect of lets say California. The electoral college is not a true reflection on who is more popular. It doesn't represent the majority of the population. So if you wanna make it fair, at least give the winner of the popular vote some bonus points in the election.

The electoral college is outdated. They must evolve just like the NBA and MLB. Gotta to continue to evolve. Tell me I'm nuts when I say that the winner of the popular vote should at least get some extra points. These small country states don't have a lot of people. There are less people in the small areas then the whole population when you take into account the real cities with a lot of people such as San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

Again, the most fair way would be to just have the popular vote as the determiner of the winner. But since the popular vote is not perfect either, then we should have a hybrid system that combines both the popular vote and the electoral college.

[Patrick Chewing]

Democrat cities are loaded with stupid people. And stupid people shouldn't be allowed to determine who is in charge of running the country.

[jstern]

I'm going to have to agree with Patrick Chewing. The founding fathers were very smart, and they knew that eventually the bigger states were going to be populated by stupid people.

Imagine if the needs of the country were centered around catering to California?

[BurningHammer]

I'm going to have to agree with Patrick Chewing.
Ain't you always do? :confusedshrug:

[Walk on Water]

I'm going to have to agree with Patrick Chewing. The founding fathers were very smart, and they knew that eventually the bigger states were going to be populated by stupid people.

Imagine if the needs of the country were centered around catering to California?

So that's your argument? That bigger states have stupid people? I would think the opposite is true. Bigger states have real big cities, not just small towns isolated out in the middle of nowhere, so they have a more accurate idea on what the majority of the country needs and what is relevant.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Democrat cities are loaded with stupid people. And stupid people shouldn't be allowed to determine who is in charge of running the country.

But all the MENSA members are in the rural bumf#ck areas of the deep South. Sure Poopsie.

[jstern]

So that's your argument? That bigger states have stupid people? I would think the opposite is true. Bigger states have real big cities, not just small towns isolated out in the middle of nowhere, so they have a more accurate idea on what the majority of the country needs and what is relevant.

I forgot about this thread. Of course, I was goofing around a bit, since all states have stupid people.

If we were to go solely by the popular vote, candidates will focus exclusively on the major cities and neglect the needs of smaller states and rural communities. The founding fathers were very smart, very high IQ, and spent an incredible amount of time, with knowledge of past nations and human nature, thinking about this.

For example, the concept of free speech was not something created because it sounds cool, but it's based on history and human nature. It's the only way to try and combat corruption.

[Bill Gates]

I'm going to have to agree with Patrick Chewing. The founding fathers were very smart, and they knew that eventually the bigger states were going to be populated by stupid people.

Imagine if the needs of the country were centered around catering to California?

This post is so stupid is so many different ways :oldlol: :facepalm

[rmt]

Of course winning the popular vote doesn't guarantee a win. I think that they should change it to popular vote. At the very least, take note of the NBA mid season tournament. They have point differential and stuff. The election should at least factor in the popular vote and at the least, give you an extra 30-50 bonus points for winning the popular vote by a certain amount.

Think about that. Even if you have all these states that are red, all of them combined don't equal the popular vote effect of lets say California. The electoral college is not a true reflection on who is more popular. It doesn't represent the majority of the population. So if you wanna make it fair, at least give the winner of the popular vote some bonus points in the election.

The electoral college is outdated. They must evolve just like the NBA and MLB. Gotta to continue to evolve. Tell me I'm nuts when I say that the winner of the popular vote should at least get some extra points. These small country states don't have a lot of people. There are less people in the small areas then the whole population when you take into account the real cities with a lot of people such as San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

Again, the most fair way would be to just have the popular vote as the determiner of the winner. But since the popular vote is not perfect either, then we should have a hybrid system that combines both the popular vote and the electoral college.

The name of this country is the United STATES of America - not the United People of America. Each state has its own laws, rules, taxes, etc. (distinctly separate from the other) and ITS OWN SAY in the electoral college (which btw is determined by population). I guess you want to abolish the Senate too since small states have the same 2 senators as do big states. There is a mechanism by which we can change this - why don't you and all those who agree with you work toward that (good luck with that).

[Nanners]

20 years is not exactly a long time when it comes to presidential elections.

20 years ago the republican George W beat the democrat Kerry in popular vote by a margin of 3 million... in the years since there have been 2 big Obama wins, Trumps winning over Hillary despite her slightly winning popular vote, and Bidens massive win over Trump where he allegedly got 81m votes (lol)

[AKA_AAP]

WalkOnLowIncome wants to get rid of the checks and balances of the U.S. Constitution. :facepalm

[TheMan]

Democrat cities are loaded with stupid people. And stupid people shouldn't be allowed to determine who is in charge of running the country.

TBH, both parties have their fair share of idiots. You're way too tribal, carnal.