[Winona Online Democracy]
Hello Glen,
Wow!
What great information and great points about the combined populations in
the biggest 15 and smallest 35 states.
That concern is one of the biggest obstacles to overturning the Electoral
College.
Here are some quick responses:
1. The candidates already ignore many states because of the Electoral
College. Gore and Bush spent most of their time in the states where the
Electoral College vote was going to be close. (Only Ralph Nader visited
all 50 states in his campaign.)
2. To be real blunt, afterall, what is a state? The most important
political body is a person. The largest states have more sway because they
have more people in them. We shouldn't count cows, corn fields, or sage
brush. The geographical and city/rural splits could be worked about my
other methods.
3. There are better ways to focus attention on all the areas of the country.
What do you think?
Dwayne
=================
>From: "Glen & Diane Schumann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Winona Online Democracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: [Winona] Electoral College
>Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 21:50:19 -0600
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>Importance: Normal
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Precedence: bulk
>
>The top fifteen states by population (California, Texas, New York, Florida,
>Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, Georgia, North
>Carolina, Virginia, Massachusetts, Indiana, Washington) have a population
>of 180,199,000. The bottom 35 states plus the District of Columbia have only
>94,436,000. These numbers are from a population estimate document I found on
>the US Census Bureau website.
>
>Assuming for the moment that these populations are proportional to the
>number of persons eligible to vote, if you won 51% of the vote in the 15
>most populous states you would have 91,901,490 votes. Your opponent would
>have to carry about 97.5% of the vote in the small states to beat you.
>
>What candidate would spend any money or campaign anywhere outside of the 15
>or so most populous states under those conditions?
>
>Popular election of the president is a sure way to concentrate power in the
>most populous states. States ranking less than in the top 20 by population
>would effectively be disenfranchised.
>
>Minnesota is currently number 20, projected to slip to 21 by 2005.
>
>Glen Schumann
>Winona, MN
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>H: 507.454.3056 W: 507.453.3567 W FAX: 507.454.1440
>
>Visit my Family Home Page: <http://www.hbci.com/~gschuman/home.htm>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Duane Peterson
>Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 7:29 PM
>To: Ed Thompson
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [Winona] Electoral College
>
>
>[Winona Online Democracy]
>
>I listened today to MPR and several experts talking about the difficulty in
>amending the constitution to change the electoral college. The small states
>get at least 3 electors even though their population would not justify that
>many. Those states usually oppose the change. They usually can kill the
>amendment in the US Senate. At any rate it will be interesting to see how
>it develops this year. Look to see which senators oppose amending the
>constitution.
>Duane M. Peterson
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ed Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 5:26 PM
>Subject: [Winona] Electoral College
>
>
>> [Winona Online Democracy]
>>
>> Just to get another interesting discussion going: I just heard on the
>radio
>> that Senator Arlen Specter (R, PA) will be proposing a constitutional
>> amendment to eliminate the electoral college and have voters directly
>elect
>> the president. There is, of course, precedence for this: The seventeenth
>> amendment, passed in 1913, changed the election of senators from state
>> legislatures to popular vote. So, what do you think? Good idea? Bad
>idea?
>> Why?
>>
>> Ed Thompson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> A timely witty saying for this week, from Dan Quayle:
>> "A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls."
>>
>>
>> ----------------
>> This message was posted to the Winona Online Democracy Project.
>> Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or
>unsubscribe.
>> Please sign all messages posted to this list with your actual name.
>> Posting of commercial solicitations is not allowed on this list.
>> Report problems to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>
>----------------
>This message was posted to the Winona Online Democracy Project.
>Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or unsubscribe.
>Please sign all messages posted to this list with your actual name.
>Posting of commercial solicitations is not allowed on this list.
>Report problems to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Glen Schumann.vcf 2 (TEXT/ttxt) (0001F2B8)
>
----------------
This message was posted to the Winona Online Democracy Project.
Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or unsubscribe.
Please sign all messages posted to this list with your actual name.
Posting of commercial solicitations is not allowed on this list.
Report problems to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
