And sarcastic and way too long
And a really poorly framed explanation full of typos.
I want to spend a moment and try to explain why the popular vote and people that continue to say that the guy with the strange hair didn't win the election or because he didn't get more popular votes that makes him not the president, and why that is stupid.
First off, our system of how we elect the president has been around a long time. That doesn't make it right. What that makes it is real and if the people we elect haven't changed it, we are guilty vicariously by doing nothing about it for it being in existence.
Which means, stop electing people that don't represent your needs. But that's another story altogether. It's like saying "it hurts when I go like this", and you keep going like that.
The second piece is that to change how we elect the president it takes a constitutional convention and that means a lot of other crazy stuff that 94.2% of you have no idea how much crazy could really happen. Again, but that's another story. Look up prohibition and the repeal of prohibition. It's a fun read.
So for a moment, assume the electoral college process of how we elect a president has a bunch of rules, which it does. So does football (go raiders).
When you play the game, you play based on these rules. Some of the rules are simple. The field is so many yards wide and so many yards long and there are goal posts on either end.
Ideally you all grasp this concept. And the rules functionally don't change in this regard and never have as far as any of us remember.
The teams strategy is based in part on the size of the playing field. It doesn't matter who plays, or where they play, the field doesn't change dimensions.
When the teams play their strategy is based on getting the oblong leather thingy from one side of this field to the other with a set number of attempts and consequences for doing or not doing this.
If one team scores and the other doesn't, the number of fans in the stadium doesn't matter and the time of possession of the oblong leather thingy is irrelevant.
No matter how good your team is, or who cheers for you or has an opinion on your merits, the game is decided by rules and determined by the players strategy given those rules.
If one team makes lots of field goals and the other team makes touch downs, again, the number, or net of the points determines who gets to pour sugar based water with electrolytes onto their coaches head after the zebra looking man shoots the gun into the air ending the game.
Hence, the entire game is predicated on a series of strategies based on the rules and the strategy within those rules to make more numbers appear on the electronic thingy than the other team.
The electoral college is the same basic concept. It has rules. The candidates know these rules and they base their strategy around the rules and then they campaign to get more points than the other team based on these rules.
This is an important distinction to remember. It isn't the type of points that it takes to win, it's the total number of points and these are based on how the team is able to get across the fake green grass quickly.
If the football people tomorrow said they didn't like the outcome of the game and randomly said tomorrow the field is 10 yards wide and 500 yards long and having more fans in the stadium than the other team was a factor in winning; guess what would happen?
You guessed it, the teams would change their strategy. The game would change. The entire perspective of the fans would change. In essence, the outcome may be the same, but the plays would be different.
The same goes with politicians. If the election was based on the popular vote they would campaign differently. Realistically this means they would spend 80% of their time campaigning on the west coast, the east coast and the southern coasts of the country.
Why you ask?
Well it's simple, that's where the majority of people are. No one would care about Iowa or Kansas because there aren't enough people to make a difference in the popular vote. So they would be ignored. Two cities on either coast would be worth more than five or six small states.
And herein lies the rub, then the candidates functionally ignore around 60% of the country because it's a waste of resources to campaign there. This is also 60% of the country that is farm land. And it turns out farmers make food and we eat food. So we don't always want to ignore them, unless they are vegan organic kale farmers, we can ignore them.
For a moment, ask yourself what makes up the senate and what makes up the House of Representatives.
The senate is simple. Two senators per state, regardless of the states population. This way every state has an equal say in part of how laws are made or not made.
The house on the other hand has x number of representatives from each state based on population. Which means it's a popularity based system that makes states with lots of people have more say than smaller states for the stuff the house does in regard to how laws are made.
And the really smart people that came up with this system decided that to get stuff passed you needed a certain type of agreement from the people in the senate and a certain type of agreement from the people in the house. In this way laws would be based on part to what each state has an opinion on equally and what each state has an opinion on based on the number of people in the state.
I realize I lost almost everyone at this point. But it's important to grasp this.
The campaign for president is won by a system that already exists as a model in congress to a certain extent. It is intended to ensure that all states have a say and that places with lots of people don't dictate terms to everyone else.
In a place like California democrats control the electoral college. It's mostly a waste of time for a republican to campaign there. This is further proven that the few million popular votes cast for the old cranky white guy made no difference what so ever because all of the electoral college votes went to the angry old white woman. So when you complain about votes not counting, a few million people in California and even in New York voted we're completely ignored because of the system. Yes, that means millions of people voted and had zero representation in our current and most recent election.
If you don't like the rules, you change them. You also must grasp the concept of unintended consequences to what it means to open up a constitutional convention. Which no one really ever thinks about. Some day I will go into that, because it would be fun, but no one would actually read it, just like no one is reading this now. I like kittens and boobs.
Then take a moment and ask yourself why you keep re-electing the same people into congress when they are never really held accountable to you or anyone else and they make the rules.
So you end up blaming the Russians, the media, a monkey and an organ grinder that sings fake news and you never look to yourself as to what you are doing to change it.
Hence, the president is the president, doesn't matter if you like it or not.
The campaign was won and lost based on existing strategies on how the game is played given rules that exist that we don't bother to change and the politicians don't change because it effects them also.
And claiming that the president isn't the president because of the popular vote is kind of stupid because it assumes some really lame fallacies about how the election works and doesn't work within the given set of rules.
In in summary, micro robotics are the future.