Quote:
Originally Posted by madm1k3
What?
Are you supporting the idea that land mass is more important than population? Obama won both the popular vote and electoral college but you are correct he didn't when it came down to land mass.
|
No. I never said that.
It's amazing to me how easy it is for the written word to be totally and completely misunderstood.
I was pointing out that in areas that have a large population of people on the govt. dole that they vote Democrat. And in areas that have less of them on govt. handouts, they tend to vote Republican.
Doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of both in all the states. The vote in most states is pretty damn close percentage-wise. The winner usually gets only a few percentage points more votes than his opponent.
I think Obama won the election easily. But I'm pointing out that when you are in the party that is publicly perceived to be the one that favors govt. handouts, and then you have the majority of people for the first time in history getting govt. handouts...then the election is almost predetermined at that point.
I also think that this "winner takes all" electoral voting is bullshit.
Say Obama had won 49% of the votes in a state and Romney won 51%. But the current system gave ALL of that states votes to Romney.
It's bullshit. And makes people feel like their vote didn't count.
In that scenario, the electoral votes should be awarded to each man by the amount of the popular vote.
But I'm getting off track now...