Но вот какой интересный анализ напечатали тут: [hr]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-09/why-state-budgets-could-reshape-u-s-politics.html[/hr] - оказывается, если давать штатам электоральные голоса не по количеству нелегально проживающих в них граждан, а по уровню их финансовой стабильности (оцененной по рейтингам S&P) - то получается, что у Ромни вышла бы очень убедительная победа.
А в конце вывод - те, кто приписывают демократам в Штатах окончательную и безоговорочную победу на все времена - рано радуются.Using this system, the states that Romney won would be sufficient to give him a strong victory in this imaginary electoral college: 278 to 260. A simpler system, which assigned each state from zero to five points depending on which of six S&P buckets it fell in, would also give a solid victory to Romney, 94 to 88. It would appear, then, that Obama, who won handily in both popular and electoral votes, did so largely by carrying states that are more poorly governed fiscally.
To see the pattern another way, consider the type of state where each candidate racked up points in the real Electoral College. Romney got 73 percent of his electoral votes from 16 states that have either AAA or AA+ ratings from S&P; Obama received only 39 percent of his electoral votes from states with these two highest ratings, and those included swing states such as Florida, Ohio and Virginia. Instead, the bulk of the president’s electoral support -- 61 percent -- came from 14 financially weak states that he won handily. These states had credit ratings of AA or below and he won 13 of the 14 by at least five percentage points.
