From: cubby77267@aol.com   
      
   On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:48:54 GMT, mjoann    
   wrote:   
      
   >Loki wrote:   
   >>   
   >> And Californian's, Texan's, and New Yorker's have interests beyond   
   >> those of Nevadan's and Iowan's. However, we are left out of the mix.   
   >   
   >How? California, Texas and New York still have more electoral votes, so   
   >you're left out how?   
      
   The candidates do not campaign here.   
      
   >> Why should it be that when choosing the most powerful individual   
   >> elected official that the voice of some citizens should be so much   
   >> greater than that of others?   
   >   
   >Voters in states with tiny populations would be completely overshadowed   
   >by those from big states.   
      
   How so? Because candidates do not campaign in them? One man one vote   
   would assure that the vote of an Iowan counted no more, no less than   
   the vote of a New Yorker.   
      
   > Democracy and the electoral college ensure   
   >that these little states are not ignored.   
      
   How would they be ignored? Those citizens would have just as much say   
   as the citizens of any other state.   
      
   > How would you feel if your   
   >state was just say 10 percent the size of another, and your state's   
   >issues never got through because they were such a tiny minority that   
   >they never stood a chance?   
      
   Right now my state is in exactly that position. Candidates do not   
   campaign in California because it is not competitive. The same could   
   be said of Texas and New York. Furthermore, when I go to the polls to   
   choose my President, under the rules of the Electoral College my voice   
   is only about one third that of an Alaskan.   
      
      
   Loki   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)