Quote Originally Posted by Dr_BuzzCzar View Post
Counting states is just acreage, area, square miles. That has absolutely no bearing on the subject. So, if you subtract electoral college votes from Kerry he would have less. Wow...that's insightful. Support of the people is the measure. Bush received a whopping .7% plurality against a weak candidate that ran a weak race. Ah heck, I'm just disagreeing for fun and entertainment.

I will agree on one point though, Bush was much more popular in 2004.....compared to Bush in 2008, that is...22% approval rating. He's tied Harry Truman's rating after he fired Gen. McArthur.

Hmm, I had assumed that you were aware of the Electoral College process. Since the US uses that quaint system, winning a state ( acreage, area, square miles, etc) is the most important thing that can be done in a presidential election. Win the state, get the electoral votes. First one to 270 wins.

**** I am sure that you are aware of the electoral process and were being deliberately obtuse in your response. *****

The point about CA and NY is that they are bastions of liberalism and are usually check marks in the Dem electoral count total. Take those totals away and the race was even more one sided.

I'm not a fan of the Electoral process, does not seem quite right for someone to win the popular vote, but lose the election. But, maybe the writers of the constitution knew what they were doing when they foresaw heavily populated states overshadowing rural states. The system we have now still gives too much power to large populations.

Popular voting totals is not the answer and giving 1 vote to each state is not the way to go either. I'm not sure what the best way would be, but given how things are bogged down, the chances of a constitutional amendment to revise this are slim and none.