Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2006, at 18:10:47
In reply to Re: And now, while iron is gold » Dinah, posted by lil' jimi on November 10, 2006, at 10:34:51
I guess I just get stuck on the fact that people are disenfranchised anyway. But in the end, it may make no difference.
If no democrat will bother with Utah (as an example, with no basis in anything I know), because they're unlikely to win, and no republican will bother with Utah, because they're not likely to lose, Utah voters are effectively disenfranchised, even if they have a disproportionately large share of electors.
But in a popular vote, the thirty someodd percent that are yellow dog democrats, and the thirty someodd percent that are yellow dog republicans (and I sure hope I have the origin of that phrase correct), are largely disenfranchised after the primaries. Well, not really, because they'll still be courted to vote, which would make a difference in a popular vote election, and less of a difference in an electoral college election.
What difference does it make in a state that always goes republican, or a state that always goes democrat, what percent of the vote comes out?
I'd be happy with the middle ground of splitting electoral votes. It might be the best of both worlds. Each voter in every state would be important.
It would make a fascinating change in campaign elections.
I'll have to give it more consideration. The most appealing outcome to my personal tastes is usually when the parties decide to nominate someone who will be highly electable, by virtue of appealing to the swing votes.
(says this fervent proponent of moderation)
poster:Dinah
thread:701735
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20061009/msgs/702384.html