Comments Posted By chatterbox
Displaying 1 To 1 Of 1 Comments
Wow, a completely flawed premise has spawned a truly interesting debate. One that has been going on since the founding of the country, but interesting nonetheless. I have to agree with most of the commenters. Direct elections would seem to be the fairer system.
I would like to contest the hypothesis that it wouldn't favor Republicans. First off, it has been pointed out that Bush won in rural areas. But I want to address what the author spoke of: that it would cost more to reach rural voters. This makes no sense.
Advertising costs are based off of eyeballs reached, not square miles covered. Advertising in smaller markets is cheaper than in larger markets. So if one wanted to reach rural voters they could make lots of smaller ad buys instead of a few large ones. Logistically you may be talking about a bit more work for the advertising coordinator, but that's about the extent of the difference.
Do you have any facts or market analysis to back-up your cost claims?
Comment Posted By chatterbox On 29.08.2006 @ 13:24
