[–] Thin_White_Duke 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
That's funny, I basically said literally this yesterday.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 16 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago
[–] InnatelyAcidic 3 points 0 points 3 points (+3|-3) ago (edited ago)
Pretty accurate analogy, but I think it's more akin to heading over a cliff, arguing about who gets the last Mt. Dew in the cooler, bitching about all the Doritos being gone.
Your point is really moot though, as the presidential election is determined by the delegates of the electoral college, who happen to generally agree with their respective state's popular vote. They've shown that if they don't like the results, they'll do whatever the fuck they want; ah la presidential election, Nov. 7th, 2000
[–] ShinyVoater ago
The electors are bound to their states' popular vote(though a state or two is less winner-take-all); the reason Dubya could win with a smaller portion of the popular vote is that, once they reach 50%+1, the number of voters someone takes a state with is irrelevant(so if candidate X were to get 100% of the vote in every state he won, but candidate Y only got barely enough in his states, the numbers could be all out of proportion).
[–] Womb_Raider 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
That was exactly his point. You have only repeated it in a less articulate manner.
[–] ObviouslyAHuman 0 points 18 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago
The rules will just always change to benefit the rule makers.
[–] SumerBreeze 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Wait - what is the Ron Paul Rule?