February 09, 2004
2000 Swing States
I've posted a list of contested states for the 2000 presidential election. While so much energy and focus was spent on Florida, it is good to remember that Oregon, Wisconsin and New Mexico were almost as close. These are only the very closest races, but I think that they are enough to begin doing some work on this general concept of adopting a state. Hasta la vista electoral college. For more details on Swing State info see The Swing State Project.
The question now is how to develop a strategy to encourage people in states that aren't really very close (such as New York or Massachusetts) to expend whatever energy they have on those states that really matter. A good way to begin doing this might be to become a bit more familiar with the issues in these states. For example, a quick breeze through the editorial sections in Ohio newspapers shows what a big deal the steel tariff issue is (was) there. Perhaps we could talk about this issue and try and find an approach that exposes Bush's machinations without advocating what was in fact an illegal act on the part of the administration.
Posted by Palabris at February 9, 2004 09:07 PM
There's some very interesting stuff about steel tariffs in The Price of Loyalty (the book about Paul O'Neill). I was only able to check for a moment this morning, & didn't find anything, but O'Neill's original documents (white house memos, etc.) are at www.ronsuskind.com...very interesting stuff.
As for electoral reform, what's the advantage of retaining the electoral college at all? Having electors awarded proportionally within a state functionally negates the need to "win" a state. right? why not a straight potpular vote? What might be significant differences between these two systems?