And? So what if red counties cover more area geographically? I've seen these sorts of maps trotted out over the past 16 years with Republicans using them to say "Look how red America is!" It's a misleading map. Some remote county with less than 1000 people in it shouldn't count more on a per capita basis than a county with 100,000+ people, and Wyoming and Vermont voters shouldn't count for more than New York or Texas. Also, not all of those blue counties are urban, and not all the red ones are rural.

Also, your little map there doesn't address mine. 12 states, only one of them (New Hampshire) a small heavily-rural state, essentially determine the entire election. Candidates will never pay Wyoming any more attention than they do California, because they know how those states will end up on election day. The Electoral College means that only competitive states are going to get any attention in the lead up to the general election. Why is this acceptable? Why should Republican voters in deep blue states and Democratic voters in deep red states be absolutely worthless?

As I pointed out before, George W. Bush won the popular vote in 2004 by a 3 million vote/2.5 percentage point margin. It's also possible that Kasich could have beaten Hillary by a significant margin. Republicans also win gubernatorial and Senate races in traditionally Democratic states all the time; Massachusetts, Illinois, and New Jersey are all deep blue states with GOP governors, and New York and California had Republican governors not so long ago. The converse of this is true as well; Democrats win in deep red states as well. But they didn't get those wins by being hyperpartisan ideologues.

So don't pretend that Republicans are somehow unable to win the national popular vote anymore. It's a matter of fielding the right candidate. Bush won the popular vote in 2004 at least in part because he did better with Latino voters than any other presidential candidate in the past 40 years. He got 44% of the Latino vote that year according to exit polls, whereas Trump only got 28% of the Latino vote. Had the Latino vote split like it did in 2004, Trump would have won the popular vote. But he wasn't popular with Latinos. Kasich, Bush, Rubio, and Cruz would have done a lot better among Latinos based on approval rating polls.

I've also pointed out that urban areas are not ideological monoliths. 80% of the population lives in urban areas, but while urban centers tend to favor Democrat the suburbs tend to slightly favor Republicans. Rural voters tend to favor Republicans, too, and by a heavy margin, enough to offset the edge Democrats have in urban centers. As demographics change in the future, so will party platforms and campaigning strategies, but there's no reason to think that just because the country has become more urbanized over time it means that Democrats will permanently hold on to the White House one day. The issues of the day our country faces decades from now will not be the exact same issues we face today, any more than the issues we face today are the same ones our grandparents or their grandparents faced. Voting habits change. The Democrats were once a mostly agrarian party centered in the South, while the Republicans were a more activist big-government party centered in the North. But parties change over time. The entire notion of an almost entirely binary "liberal Democrat" and "conservative Republican" is a relatively recent one that didn't start to materialize until some time in the mid to late 60s and didn't really crystallize until the 80s & 90s. Our ancestors from 100 years ago would be utterly puzzled by today's party dynamics, and our descendants will in 100 years look back on our party dynamics and note how different things used to be in the early 21st century. Republicans could and would eventually retake the White House even if we did have a national popular vote system. It's just a matter of adapting to changing political realities.

I also pointed out that in a popular vote system candidates don't win states anymore. They win individual votes across the country. That state-by-state winner-take-all business would no longer exist. Therefore, it would be incumbent on the Republican candidate to get more Republican voters in all 50 states to turn out on election day. Republican voters in states like California and New York would actually matter, as I've stated repeatedly, and they'd have more reason to show up on election day. Same for Democratic voters in mostly Republican states.

Again, there is literally no practical reason to retain the Electoral College. It is not a beneficial system. It is the only system of its kind in democracies with a full presidential system. But just because it's "our system" doesn't make it a good system or a desirable system. But some of us convince ourselves that the nominal reasons it exists are good reasons in spite of all evidence to the contrary. It has done nothing good for this country.

lol. That's just a bullshit political scapegoat term, same as "red wall", which people parrot because they can't build their own arguments.  lol.  Tell me, instead, how many recent Republican Presidents have won the Electoral College but not the popular vote?  lol.  Okay, now tell me how many recent Democrat Presidents have won the Electoral College but not the popular vote? lol.  There is your answer.  lol.

lol.

You would be right about it being a "bullshit politcial scapegoat term"... if people said "red wall" but they dont. Dems always have the advantage in the electorial collage because the US has become more liberal over the years, in metro areas especially. Lets face it though. we wouldnt be having this convertion if the results were reversed. People would only say "You need to accept the results of the election". Like everyone should be doing.