----- Original Message ----- From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 9:53 PM Subject: Re: The Electoral College (Was: Re: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis)
> > 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? States mattered at the beginning far more than they do now. For example, the states chose the Senators, the people didn't. Representative government was a wild new idea, and there were strong checks on the voters. They only directly voted for half of the legislative branch, and not the executive branch. And of course not the judicial branch. Over the decades things changed slowly. We now elect senators directly. We are not a collection of states deciding things together, we are a mobile nation. I'm not sure why 6 Northeast states (VA, NH, MA, RI, CT, DE) which have about 70% of the population of New York should get the same electoral votes. They are not much more rural than New York, with an average population density 90% of that of New York. Or, to make it personal, why should my voice have been 50% more important when I lived in CT than it is now that I live in TX? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
