I’m not sure what the WTA stand for, so let me answer your question like this. I think it will answer your question.
Let’s say I’m a candidate and I only have so much time or finances to spend. This being the case, I start thinking about what my serious downsides will be if I don’t campaign for a certain state. If I go to Missouri and win, I can win 15 electoral (just an example, I don’t know it’s actual delegats / electors) votes and the other candidate won’t win any. That makes Missouri (or any state that does give 15 electoral votes) as important as California. Why waste time in California if a smaller effort can garner the same plus / minus impact?
California has 54 electoral votes. I think you can look at nomination delegates in about the same manner.
What happens if I don’t campaign in California? I may lose a few districts. Is that devistating? I don’t think so. If won districts achieve a portion of the overall electoral votes or delegates, I only stand to lose a portion of them.
If I go campaign in the state and work my arse off, I can only expect to win about two thirds of the districts at best. One third will generally agree with the alternative. If more agree with the alternative, it makes my benefit of working in the state even less.
Without going to California, I could probably expect to win 40%. By going I would probably at best only win 60%. What’s the spread then?
If I win 40% I would get about 21 electoral votes, or a comparative of delegates. If I win 60% I would get about 32 electoral votes, or a compative of delegates.
The spread is on 11 electoral votes. Anotherwords any state that gives out 11 or more electoral votes, suddenly becomes as important as California to me. Why should I go to California and work my butt off, when I can expend the same amount of effort in three states that give me all of their 12 electoral votes. 11 electoral votes or 36? Hmmm, where should I spend my time?
Now, if all of California’s 54 electoral votes or the comparative delegates are mine if I win, suddenly California becomes as important as four plus 12 delegate states. All of a sudden the state becomes a must. I cannot afford to let the other guy make a clean sweep in the state.
That’s why I think it is important to have all the eggs go to the winner.
The uninformed and spiteful believe that California is a giant blue state when, in fact much of the state is very conservative. Divying up electoral votes by district would, at the least show the rest of the nation that the blueness is mostly in San Francisco, LA, and some places on the coast. At best, it could deny Osama Obama or the Hildebeast a portion of our electoral votes.
There is a movement to do just that and both the GOP and DemocRAT parties are against it.
Michael Frazier
Thanks for you reply.
WTA = winner take all
Essential that is the process for ‘electoral college’ votes except in ME and NE.
CA varies that somewhat for the Primary delegate selection process in that it is winner take all by congressional district for each districts three delegates and winner take all statewide for the at large and bonus delegatges. So in effect a candidate could come in an work for delegates in selected CDs that he may have a good shot at winning.
I guess it just depends upon how one wants to structure the process and campaign.
Take care.