In a message dated 11/22/00 8:36:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

> >The electoral college may have its drawbacks, but consider two of its
>  >strengths.  One is that it requires presidential candidates to pay
>  >attention to all states rather than only the most populous states.
>
>  This isn't true.  Candidates need not pay attention to safe
>  electorates.  We have the same problem here - the safe electorates get
>  pretty much ignored - it's assumed they'll go to the on of the
>  Labor/Liberal/National Parties, so why campaign?

    Actually, a state is only "safe" for a party as long as that party
continues to represent the interests of the majority of the citizens of that
state. If a party fails or ceases to do that, the state will be put into
play.  The question for the candidates then becomes, "is it worth the time
and money to bother with that state?

Using a state with the least number of electors allowed (3) and the most
number of electors currently held by a state (54) we find the following:

Wyoming has 3 electoral votes and a population of 482,200.

California has 54 electoral votes and a population of 33,867'600.

Total electoral votes are 538 and US population is 273,537,800.
(note: population figures represent all citizens, not just those eligible to
vote.)

                          Wyoming         California
% electoral votes        0.56%             10.04%
% population              0.18%            12.40%

Note Wyoming's relative gain in electoral influence as opposed to its
population, and California's relative loss in electoral influence as opposed
to its population.

But the real compensator can be seen when we compare population relative to
electoral vote.

Each of Wyoming's electoral votes represents the theoretical will of 160,733
men, women, and children.

Each of California's electoral votes represents the theoretical will of
627,177 men, women, and children.

In other words, the electoral college provides a 3.9 to 1 leverage for the
citizens of Wyoming.

Viewed from the aspect of a national popular vote, let's assume 73% (352,006)
of Wyoming's population is eligible to vote, and 53% (186,563) do so, and 49%
(91,415) of them vote for one major candidate or the other (A similarly
calculated figure for California would be 6,420,643 to Wyoming's 91,415 votes
or a
ratio of 70 to 1).  How much effort would you, as a candidate, make in such a
state and how much concern would you have for that which is of interest to
the people of such a sparsely populated state if election were by national
popular vote rather than an elector-based statewide popular vote?

Yours,
Issodhos
p.s. I think the numbers are roughly right, but I am sleepy.