[clue-talk] Any feelings on Barr and Libertarian Party?

[Michael Fierro]

On Wed May 28 2008 8:47:07 pm Collins Richey wrote:

> > You mean "all the states" not "everyone" would be disenfranchised.  If
> > the vote were popular, the states wouldn't have a voice.

> No, what I mean is that the largest states would have so much impact
> that the miniscule number of people in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana etc.
> would have effectively no impact, thus disenfranchisement in my terms.
> Thank $DEITY our founders were wise men.

I think I see what David is saying. If there is no electoral college but only 
a popular vote, then states don't even factor into the equation. Every 
individuals vote counts just as much as every other individuals vote. It 
doesn't matter whether you are in New York or Montana: a vote for candidate X 
counts as a vote for candidate X.

Contrast this with the electoral college: a person's vote in Montana does not 
equal the same as a peron's vote in California. If McCain wins Montana, he 
gets 3 electoral votes. So a Montana resident's vote can influence a sum 
total of 3 out of the 538 total electoral votes. Hence presidential 
candidates unwillingness to campaign in Montana. If McCain wins California, 
however, he would pick up 55 electoral votes. So a California resident's vote 
has a much larger impact on the election.

So in that way, the electoral college actually makes some citizen's votes much 
less important than other citizen's votes. And if you don't believe that, ask 
someone who lives in Montana. :)

(One side note: Obama is a big-time supporter of the 50-state strategy. He 
will campaign in Montana, at least briefly.)

- Michael (.sig to come soon)