Dean Forster wrote:
>
> if we went to purely a popular vote system, all the
> candidates would do is pander to the 4 biggest states
> (ca, ny, fl, and tx), and leave the rest of us to rot.
> 
Does that argument really make sense in light of the last election where a few
hundred thousand votes could have swung it the other way?  You can only change
so many minds in the big states no matter how hard you campaign so it might
turn out that the stops you made in Indiana and Arizona, where the other guy
didn't run so hard, really _did_ make the difference.  The way it is now, the
candidates only campaign hard where the vote is close.  In the last election,
the three largest states were virtually ignored.  Is that an equitable system?

Doug

Reply via email to