By using your logic of individual power, however, the US Senate would meet
the above example. Thus, an individual from South Dakote has more power
in Congress than an individual from Illinois.
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.
I think this is completely wrong. Each vote would be worth the same as every
other vote. The candidates would have to concentrate on populations with
common interests. Voters in New Mexico are likely to have common interests so
campaigns would be targetted to interests and would cross state lines to the
extent that interests due (e.g. ranchers in new mexico are likely to have the
same interests as ranchers in neighboring arizona so would vote in similar
ways and respond to similar campaign tactics). In the end there would be less
unfairness not more but let us be clear. What is wrong when voting for the
president of all the united states for the presidential candidates to be
forced to pay attention to all voting groups regardless of state. This is
basic fairness.
_______________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Now is not the Time for Third Chances,
It is a Time for New Beginnings."
- George W. Bush 8/3/00
******************VOTE BUSH / CHENEY 2000 *******************
>>
