----- Original Message -----
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: Proportional Representation Re: Winner Takes All
> At 04:37 PM 11/15/00 -0600, dendrite wrote:
> > Joshua, I understand the theory behind electoral vote dilution, that is
not
> >a problem. I do find it ridiculous that my vote for president is not
equal
> >to the vote of an individual from another state.
>
> But rob, you don't cast a vote for President.
Hmmmm....I seem to recall a list of names on the ballot. Right at the top at
that! Perhaps it was just some wierd wish fulfillment daydream.
>
> The president is not a
> >"Ruler" and actually hold less overall power than the legislative branch
who
> >are elected proportionally.
> >This is the only example I am aware of (in the US) where voters are not
> >equal.
>
> By using your logic of individual power, however, the US Senate would meet
> the above example.
In a Senate race, all votes are exactly equal.
> Thus, an individual from South Dakote has more power
> in Congress than an individual from Illinois.
True, but Senators are to represent the interests of a state and in the
Senate all states are equal. The wishes of individuals are only expressed
rarely in the Senate. Senators represent the collective interest of a state
as opposed to the collective will of the people.
>
> By the same token, under a direct vote for President, a voter in New
Mexico
> would hold substantially less power than a voter in Pennsylvania. It is
> hard to imagine Presidential candidates spending time address the concerns
> of New Mexicans in a direct vote system, whereas a voter living in the
> population centers of Pennsylvania would continue to have even more time
> and money lavished on them by Presidential candiates.
The President is the representative of *all* the people, and in theory is
elected by the collective will of the people. In fact lightly populated
states have disproportionate power in regards to the election of a President
in a bizarre kind of electoral *welfare*. This welfare exists to the
detriment of individuals living in large cities and populous states.
The individuals of lightly populated states will always have the ear of the
President via the also disproportionate representation they have in the
Senate and the more or less proportionate representation in the House. As it
stands, the real power in government is in Congress for the most part
anyway.
As for stumping during an election, almost everyone in the nation learns
about the candidates from radio and television. Why would candidates
actually have to visit any particular state? (That might eliminate a few
campaign lies).
There seems to be an unspoken assumption that there is a great urban vs.
rural (states) divide during a presidential election.
I doubt that. I would suggest that there is not a single (1) voting district
that voted 100% for one candidate. While I would agree that there are
majorities and landslides in individual districts, there are no homogenous
districts.
(1) Exception. There are a few counties having very few inhabitants, but
since they are few, and can have no effect on the elections in question, and
only on rare occasions had issues addressed at the national level (like
nuclear waste disposal), they can, for the sake of argument, be safely
ignored, without detriment to the discussion at hand.
xponent
rob
