From: saslpo@stevens.unx.sas.com (Len Olszewski)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:55:57 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: saslpo@stevens.unx.sas.com


In article <Sep.14.13.48.39.1992.22608@gandalf.rutgers.edu>, shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
|> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
|>
|> >shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
|>
|> >The EC provides a certain level of protection to the smaller states, but not
|> >*full* protection.  States like Alaska and Nevada would be totally
|> >insignificant in an election decided on popular vote.  With the EC, however,
|> >they have 6 electoral votes.  The votes of folks in large, traditionally swing
|> >states (like PA and IL) still have more value to a candidate, but the
|> >small-state voters aren't completely left out.
|>
|> Well, I don't think thats such a good system.  Instead of leaving them
|> out, they get a token vote that really doesn't mean anything in the big
|> picture?  Whats 3 electoral votes compared to 25?  The big states still
|> overwhelm the small ones and so the interests of the highly populated
|> states still get more attention.  Or don't I understand this process?
|>

You're right that the larger states receive more attention than the 
smaller ones. With the EC, though, candidates must pay at least *some* 
attention to the smaller states, especially in years when they need 
every electoral vote they can get. Why would a candidate spend any time 
at all in Wyoming, for example, if all s/he would get was perhaps 50,00 
votes out of a national pool of 80 million? What if the candidate needed 
those three electoral votes to go over the top? Without the EC, poor 
Wyoming (or lucky Wyoming 8-) never gets to see a candidate. With the 
EC, they get at least get some attention. This example works better in 
states that are "on the fence". In this election, states like Colorado 
(8 electoral votes) and Connecticult (8 votes) will be receiveing plenty 
of attention. Not necessarily if there weren't any EC at all. Not that 
it's a perfect system, but this is what it was designed for.

|> Now, do all the electoral votes from one state have to go to one candidate?
|> Is is a winner take all situation?  Or are they distributed based on the
|> popular vote.  i.e., if a 3 vote state voted 1/3 for Bush, 2/3 for Clinton,
|> would the electorals be split accordingly, or would Clinton get them all?
|>

It's winner take all. 

|> --
|> Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu)
|> Publications Coordinator - User Services
|> Rutgers University Computing Services
<-------------------------------^------------------------------------->
|  Len Olszewski                |  "Verbosity leads to unclear,       |
|  Technical Writer             |   inarticulate things."             |
|  saslpo@unx.sas.com           |                                     |
| "Have cursor, will curse."    |    - Vice-President Dan Quayle      |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Opinions this ludicrous are mine. Reasonable opinions will cost you.|
<-------------------------------v------------------------------------->
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12467 talk.politics.misc:43867 ca.politics:7470 alt.politics.correct:5233