Losing with more material

1) Plays Blitz.

2) Complains about losing on time.

3) ????

We have time constraints on our lives. We may want to play a shorter game, but actually have the outcome based on our play, It wouldn't be hard to program a version of the game that we could select over the current default 10-minute game. Why would anyone be opposed to having one more option on game types? If you like it the way it is, keep playing that version. 

Sure, you can play using your own rules against other like-minded individuals... perhaps in a club. When time runs out, let Stockfish adjudicate the game, and you can run your ladder tournament according to those results.

I don't see how this affects the rest of us, though.

lol exactly, if you don't like losing on time then play longer games.  there's classical chess tournaments as a separate category for a reason.

and if you "don't have time in your life" imago that's on you lol the rules shouldn't be changed for that

3/10 for getting me to respond

Time is as important as the position... If you play a fast game then yeah, expect to manage your clock. If you can't handle losing on time, go and play a longer time control like Rapid and no, if Carlsen said it needed to be fix, I would not agree with him. Bullet is a minute, if you run out of a minute, you lose regardless of how superior your position is to the other.
Let's say that we use your idea that if the person is winning they deserve to get a win. Then, what's wrong with being up a queen and letting your clock run out on purpose so it's a win for you, see the problem here?...
Time is as important as the position itself, you need a right balance of position vs time.

It's obvious when some of you don't read the thread. Since I'm not suggesting replacing the regular option, but adding another. One would think the chess community would be more thoughtful and less stodgy. It literally affects each of you zero if there is another game type and you choose not to play it. 

The idea is also easy to abuse. As soon as you are certain your position is better or you are up material, you can play slowly and safely with the knowledge that you will win when time runs out anyway.  Back to my previous point, why not just declare a winner once a player gets a lead in material? It's not fundamentally different than the proposal. A lot of people think their opponent should resign anyway in such a position, so maybe you could get them on board with the idea

I would prefer other variants such as Horde or Antichess before This. It doesn't make much sense, as you could spend 20 secs on every move in a blitz game, be flagged, but in a better position because you took time.

They'd agree, wouldnt they?

Your original post never proposed it as a variant, but even as a variation, it's way too easy to abuse and in my opinion would make the game less exciting; e.g. sacrifices/attacks that may not be sound won't be attempted with a knowledge that if it come down to time, the material deficiency wouldn't be worth it.

It it ever became a variation, I know I would never play it.

So basically winning on lead of material. Win a Queen early in a 5 minute game? Eyy, just don't move you'll win no matter what because if your clock runs out, the most +1.25 they'll get is +6.25, Queen is worth 9, no big deal, easy dub right there.

A win is a win, and a loss is a loss. 

Not merely material, but evaluation of position as well. And the 1.25 is just a number I threw out. some mathematicians and game theory experts could spend a day figuring out a better penalty. it may increase with each additional minute. or if say the end of your game is 5 consecutive minutes of stalling each minute doubles or some such standard. There are great options out there if someone actually wanted to think about it instead of dismiss it with no thought. 

I've always loved that phrase

Even if you have more material than your opponent it doesn't mean you are going to win the game.