On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:18:29 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:



The mitigating fact is that the states won't award electoral votes based on
national vote until enough states pass such a constitutional amendment to give
the needed electoral votes. It's not *that* dumb. Misguided, to be sure.
A state diluting what electoral votes it has is just plain *stupid*.

I would suggest that apportioning does exactly the opposite. Currently
you get a few big EC states that get all the attention because it is
winner take all.

Actually, no. The bubble states get the attention.

The candidates can, and do, ignore most of the others.

The popular vote would make sure the small states in flyover country would get
*no* interest.

With votes apportioned in some manner, smaller states become more
important again as every COngressional district is theoretically in
play. Would also make election night much more interesting.

No, it's actually just the opposite. Popular vote would concentrate the
interest in the large metropolitan areas, leaving flyover country without
representation at all. The founders didn't just throw together the
Constitution. There was a *lot* of thought put into this.

Small states have a far larger representation in Congress (and the Electoral
College) relative to their size, than large states. This wasn't done by
accident.