Sunday, April 07, 2002
Looking through my past blogs, I noticed a pledge to write on this George Will piece where California is looking into electing their presidential electors by congressional district, with an extra two (for the senators) voted on statewide. It may be a good idea for Republicans in the current climate to lock in their districts rather than lose them all. However, it would be a bad idea for a large state if they were looking to be a big influence. Only a few congressional districts would be in play, so presidential candidates would ignore the state by and large. It's cheaper to fight for West Virginia’s five votes than to fight for two at-large votes in California. Thus, resources would be shifted to the winner-take-all states still in play, ignoring California and other large states that went the district-by-district route. A swing congressional district in a compact media market (not LA where you have 20 districts you're buying ad time for in order to reach the one or two swingers) might be focused on, but big states would tend to be ignored.
Comments: Post a Comment