At 02:39 AM 10/12/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote: >> >And of course if all the states did this, then it wouldn't be a >> >disadvantage to anyone. >> >> No, it would disproportionately benefit the largest States. For example, >> 1/52nd of the vote in California would move one Electoral Vote - or about >> 2%. You would need to move 1/9th of the vote, about 11%, in Colorado to >> similarly pick up an Electoral Vote. In Alaska, that would be 1/3rd. >> It would clearly be much more profitable to campaign in California than in >> smaller States under such circumstances. > >But 1/52 of CA's registered voters (using year 2000 figures from here: >http://www.fec.gov/pages/2000turnout/reg&to00.htm ) is 300K voters. >1/9 of CO's registered voters is 250K voters, and 1/3 of AK's >registered voters is 158K voters. So smaller states would require >less voters to be convinced in order to shift one EV. I don't think >I'd call that disproportionally benefitting the large states.
Byron, I'd like you to perform a simple thought experiment. Imagine that your proposed proportional system were in place this year, and that you are an advisor to the Kerry (or Bush) campaigns, advising on what locations to visit and on what media markets to buy air time. You may wish to consider recent voting results in your answer. It should be self-evident that your advice would be to concentrate on the largest States. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
