LogFAQs > #880033004

Just shows the importance of electoral college. Look if your person won you wouldnt be complaining. Overall this stuff is overtalked to the point of death, plus take into count that campaigning would have been treated differently as well. Either way, both parties knew the rules of the game before it started. Its like someone playing twister then saying "now that i lost, it's bs that the random spinner landed on blue." Once you switch it over then someone you want to win, loses the pop vote, but wins the elect... you'll be and we'll be back to square one.

games_pot1 posted...

MorbidFaithless posted...

There is no rational defense for the electoral college in this age. I think it's time we start letting the candidate with the most votes win.

Fuck then everyone would go for Californias wants. In terms of everything, besides vacation, California is stupid as hell. Every comedy takes place in California or Miami, why is that..

This is blatantly false. Cali has roughly 10% of the EC vote and would have roughly 10% of the popular vote. Going with a standard election would actually make Cali control LESS of the election since their votes would be divided up rather than all going to one candidate

Sojy posted...

It's to make sure that candidates who only appeal to big cities don't get elected.

I wish this false narrative would fucking die. Big cities would have the exact same number of popular votes as they would EC votes. The only difference would be that areas with lower populations would actually see their votes COUNT all of a sudden

For instance, large cities in CA basically control all of CA's electoral votes. Under a standard election, rural areas would actually see better representation since their votes would go to the candidate of their choice rather than whoever the rest of the state decided should should be president.