Lumbardo

The “head” of any department is often not a scientist. Scientists conduct technical work, they don’t manage departments or orgs.

You don’t appear to understand how the electoral college works. Each state has electors who vote on behalf of the citizenry. These electors always go with the populace. So essentially popular vote applies to win the electoral votes of a state. Some states do winner take all, some split the electoral votes proportional to how the populace voted. A state that Is 50/50 doesn’t become 60/40 if the electoral college is removed. People vote how they vote and that’s that.

I don’t mean out of touch in the traditional sense. I mean the rural residents and urban residents are out of touch with each other, meaning they live very different lives.

I have an agenda in mind? You are quite literally advocating for single-party dominance, and all they need to do to is maintain control over their already established small spheres of influence in large cities. Appeal to a couple local politicians and their citizens, maintain power, leave the rest of the country in ruin.

swing states are the result of the voting populace going 50/50 on what party they vote for. One doesn’t create a swing state.

I see where you’re coming from. Popular vote wins the election, easy enough. People don’t vote like that. I don’t understand why you are refusing to see the other perspective.

People with similar ideologies clump together. Democrats are a majority in the US, and the greater share of which live very close to one another in select cities across the country. What you are saying is that only what they think matters and they will always get their way because there is more of them.

People who live in the city live very different lives and have different concerns than people live in rural areas. I don’t necessarily think it is okay for one group to have all the power, especially since they are so out of touch with one another.

An election system should be consistent and maintain a competitive election, and should not succumb to mass politics or control from people in power.

Are you referring to the swing states? They have to appeal to those states because they already have the other states locked in, but they can’t just ignore the places they usually get votes each election either. Part of the reason the Republicans won the popular vote this year is because many counties flipped from Democrat to Republican. They aren’t appealing to swing states artificially, they are trying to win the votes of a population that votes either direction and isn’t practically a guarantee.

Those red areas are in fact not empty, there are people who live in those regions. That map was made by a redditor here : https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/6914AUEoEf. When I initially saw the post (a few years ago), I verified the information presented at that time. You are of course free to double check.

What you are proposing gives complete power of the elections to small spheres of influence in the US. Candidates only have to appease to people who live in the cities to win. I don’t see how this can be seen as a good thing. The current system forces candidates to get both the rural and urban residents’ votes to win.

In the case of this election. The Republicans won the popular vote, so by your logic they should have won this year anyways.

Even so, if you look at voting distribution on a US map. Densely populated urban centers vote blue and there are large swathes of land that vote red. Do you propose that the people who live in these densely populated areas should have the power to choose the president every election?

In my view, the fact that the elections are close and both parties win is evidence that the system works.

If this is true how to democrats win elections?

This could be balanced. Perhaps the balls’ mass aren’t uniformly distributed.