I am committing the 'evil' of not reading all posts in
this thread before replying (else I'd be responding
sometime next week, I fear!)...
...Not to mention top-posting! ;)
> "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 03:49 AM 10/11/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
<massive snip>
> >You say "electoral suicide", I say "democracy".
> :-) That measure
> >could conceivably give up to 50% of the CO voters
> some impact on the
> >election that would otherwise be written off. Why
> >can't (or shouldn't) every state do this?
>
> The reason is that Colorado has 9 EV's, and after
> the 2010 Census will
> almost certainly have 10 EV's. Under the 9 EV
> system, the loser of
> Colorado needs to garner a mere 39% of the Colorado
> vote to earn 4 EV's.
> That leaves the winner of Colorado with 5 EV's. In
> other words,
> campaigning in Colorado would produce an expected
> return of only a single
> EV - a smaller expected return than WY, VT, or DE.
Yet Hawaii, with its 4 EVs, got a visit from the veep
over the past weekend! And if the split is not nearly
50-50 by popular vote, then the balance/net return
would be proportionally greater (than 1).
Debbi
who apologizes if somebody already said this, and felt
a teeny bit smug about avoiding the long lines to vote
today (although a wait of 1.25 hours last Fri, in
Early Voting, was hardly better!) :)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
