Quote Originally Posted by DesertDom View Post
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.
Damn, another of my seemingly wonderful(to me) sarcasm shots went off track. My point was you can't just "take away" votes to make your point seem better. So following your line of reasoning if I remove those bastions of conservatism that always vote Republican my point would be better made?

Couldn't agree more that the anachronistic electoral college system is woefully in need of repair. Maybe a parliamentary system of sorts? I'm unsure, really. In the end it kind of works more than it doesn't work, primarily to that free speech and free press thing we have going,