On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 22:53:31 -0400, John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
Bryon. > 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? Easier - perhaps, but not infinitely easier. It's easier to reach more people quickly in the large states, but that's not the same as moving them. The candidate still needs to actually change the minds of up to twice as many people in the large states. Also, I don't agree with the term "zero influence" above. While they might get less campaign attention, (in the same way that the locked-in states currently get less attention), those states would have exactly the same number of electoral votes as before, which is already compensating for their smaller size by being larger per capita than big states. Looking at the top 11 states by population (all with 15+ EV's), I see that those top 11 states represent a whopping 50.4% of the EC votes. But those states combine to represent 57% of the US population. By contrast, the bottom 11 states (all with 3 or 4 EV's) make up just 8.1% of the total EC votes. But those states only represent 4.1% of the US population (See spreadsheet at: http://users.rcn.com/daly5/EVbalance.xls) Isn't it enough "influence" that people in those states get *twice* the EC voting power that people in the largest states do? I think so! _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
