way I understand it. Take New Mexico for example; it has very specific
concerns that are quite different from Florida's. I mean, any of you
have a position on the BIA's handling of oil revenue? WIPP? CLEAR?
White Sands?
And New Mexico has far far less population than Florida, so let's face
it, it would matter a lot less in the *current* election, where it is
considered one of the states that matter, if we were going on one man
one vote.
I am not sure what I think on this issue, personally. I can see that
there is value in forcing politicians to focus on individual states as
states with their individual issues with the federal government.
Dana
----- Original Message -----
From: Nick McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:48:08 -0400
Subject: RE: Electoral College
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Its not so much that the small states will lose their voice, its that
candidates will not care about, or visit those states.
If Alaska has 11 people, and California has 1 million, then the candidate
would focus their energies on policies geared towards more densely populated
areas.
If I can create policies that cater to New York, Illinois, California,
Texas, Michigan, and Florida then I have won the election, while I've left
out a number of other states.
_____
From: G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 8:33 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Electoral College
How? How will sparsely populated states lose their voice????
If 11 people live in Alaska, then dammit, Alaska should get 11 votes if all
of it's citizens vote.
I just dont see how thats such a problem. I see it as a much bigger problem
if those 11 citizens all of a sudden get 11 electoral votes. 11 is a much
higher % of 270, than it is of 290 million.________________________________
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
