>>The corporate money issue is completely separate from the >>electoral college issue. Whether we count individual >>votes or votes by state, corporate money screws things >>up. As for your swing state comment, think about this. If >>we go by popular vote, there's no such thing as a swing >>state. States have nothing to do with voting in the >>president in that situation. It all rests on individuals. >>The concept of swing state will no longer exist.
What I meant was that once the electoral college is removed, there is the possibility that any would-be candidates would only choose to focus on what were traditionally known as `swing states`.
For example, why would a candidate tour the Wyomings, Kansas's and Iowa's of the country if he/she could swing the vote by hitting NYC, LA and Chicago hard? If there was some independent group set up that kept a check on the money that was coming in, then the candidates would have to hit the whole campaign trail. That way, the whole equation is kept fair for every voice.
If things remained the same but there was no electoral college, then it would be decided by individuals who can work the big cities even though the majority of the heartland wouldn't trust that individual to serve sodas =o)
(Do you know who I'm referring to!!!???)
Yours,
Richard
to spin off in a different direction...
R
richard
(view)
>>The corporate money issue is completely separate from the >>electoral college issue. Whether we count individual >>votes or votes by state, corporate money screws things >>up. As for your swing state comment, think about this. If >>we go by popular vote, there's no such thing as a swing >>state. States have nothing to do with voting in the >>president in that situation. It all rests on individuals. >>The concept of swing state will no longer exist.
What I meant was that once the electoral college is removed, there is the possibility that any would-be candidates would only choose to focus on what were traditionally known as `swing states`.
For example, why would a candidate tour the Wyomings, Kansas's and Iowa's of the country if he/she could swing the vote by hitting NYC, LA and Chicago hard? If there was some independent group set up that kept a check on the money that was coming in, then the candidates would have to hit the whole campaign trail. That way, the whole equation is kept fair for every voice.
If things remained the same but there was no electoral college, then it would be decided by individuals who can work the big cities even though the majority of the heartland wouldn't trust that individual to serve sodas =o)
(Do you know who I'm referring to!!!???)
Yours,
Richard
What I meant was that once the electoral college is removed, there is the possibility that any would-be candidates would only choose to focus on what were traditionally known as `swing states`.
For example, why would a candidate tour the Wyomings, Kansas's and Iowa's of the country if he/she could swing the vote by hitting NYC, LA and Chicago hard? If there was some independent group set up that kept a check on the money that was coming in, then the candidates would have to hit the whole campaign trail. That way, the whole equation is kept fair for every voice.
If things remained the same but there was no electoral college, then it would be decided by individuals who can work the big cities even though the majority of the heartland wouldn't trust that individual to serve sodas =o)
(Do you know who I'm referring to!!!???)
Yours,
Richard
-
Election Day Is Looming!!! – Richard M Smith on November 1st, 2000-
irresistible urges – Scott on November 2nd, 2000-
Well Said! – kravitz on November 2nd, 2000
-
election day – mark j on November 3rd, 2000
Weighing Up The Candidates – Richard M Smith on November 2nd, 2000
-
Silence from the right wing nuts – Peter T. on November 7th, 2000
part 2 – Scott on November 2nd, 2000
-
-
-
