Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 6th Nov 2012 11:37 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 541179
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
So focusing on more cities in swing states is better than ignoring non swing states altogether?
Yes and no. What I'm saying is that highly partisan States will provide predictable outcomes, every single time. The electoral majority mirrors the popular majority.
I do think that it could be considered a shame that some States do get ignored but I personally would consider it punishment for being so partisan. My point is that States with a balance of power, get more power in this case.
In other words, swing States are more representative of the entire country than the partisan ones (which would balance out if all lumped together - nation-wide the gap between democrats and republicans is essentially balanced, which swing States mirror).




Member since:
2010-06-08
So focusing on more cities in swing states is better than ignoring non swing states altogether? Even if there is a majority in some state, the minority of voters there don't appreciate that they are ignored just because their state majority predefines the result based on electoral college. Direct elections are simply more fair for everyone, since result is cumulative, state majority is not important. This gives candidates better focus on real problems, instead of attempts to gauge swing state favors.
Edited 2012-11-06 20:40 UTC