re: #105 Daniel Ballard

I’ll try to explain it like this.
In the inverse your first paragraph helps my point. Since nearly half the voters were for Romney, obstructionism is a very high risk. if Obama had won by the margin Roosevelt or Reagan had this would be a far smaller risk or threat to the agenda.

Yes. I understand that. It’s a simple truism. It’s something that doesn’t need to be stated. I’m asking you why you’re saying it as though it’s something that needs to be said. Nobody is under the impression he won by a larger percentage of the popular vote than he did. What he did do was win by a very large percentage of the electoral college vote, which is how presidents get elected.

Is your point that we ought to do popular vote because then a candidate would focus more on getting a larger percentage of people to like him regardless of state?