At 03:53 AM 10/24/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
>> 2) It forces attention on small States. For example, a lot of attention
>> is being given to Iowa and New Mexico in this election cycle. Under a
>> proportional system, it would take a shift of 10-20% to shift even one EV
>> in those States. On the other hand, it would only take a small shift of
>> 1-5% to swing EVs in large States.
>
>But we're talking percentages of greatly differing size populations:
>that 1-5% in a large state can actually work out to needing to swing
>a lot more people than the 10-20% in a small state
>
>I think we already discussed this, though. I understand your point
>that it's easier to reach more people via the biggest mass markets,
>but it's also costlier, and your alternative is that these larger
>groups of people are able to be mostly ignored while smaller groups
>elsewhere get overimportant value (based on their relative
>population).
Byron, I honestly can't tell from your comments here - but do you at least
agree that it is infinitely easier for a candidate to move 1-2% of the vote
in CA to gain a proportional EV than it would be to move 10-20% of the vote
in NM to gain a proporitional EV? And that as such, in a purely
propotional system, the smallest states would have almost zero influence?
Thanks.
JDG
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
