Suppose that instead of 1.9 million citizen votes (with the majority cast to translate into six electoral votes), Mississippi had one vote in the presidential election.

Which of the two major party nominees would be best for the state?

No answer is immediately apparent.

Take health care for people not now covered by Medicare or Medicaid. John McCain and Barack Obama both propose expansion of third-party payment systems.

‘Under McCain, the success senior U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran has had in steering money (which, yes, is often called pork) to Mississippi, would be stymied. In contrast, Obama is a spender.’

In Obama’s plan, employers who do not provide group policies when deemed able to afford it by the federal government would pay a fee or fine that would help offset the cost of government coverage for everyone else. Even with the fees and fines, getting such a system started would cost billions and billions.

In McCain’s plan, health-care benefits provided by private employers become taxable benefits, but people also get $5,000 tax credits. If employers don’t provide policies, as is common in Mississippi, the $5,000 could be used to buy private policies. Providing the credits would greatly reduce federal income. Indeed, people who owe less than $5,000 would pay no taxes at all.

In Mississippi, about one-third of all residents are covered by Medi-caid or Medicare or both. Given that most businesses here are likely too small under the Obama definition to be required to provide policies or pay fines, a larger proportion of Mississippians would be stepping up for the government insurance. And because most money to support that program would be paid by businesses and people in other states, there would be a net plus.

As for McCain’s plan, given the lower average wage and lower average tax burden here, the $5,000 tax credits would put a lot more jingle in a lot more pockets.

On energy, Mississippi is not an energy-producing state and is, instead, an energy-dependent state. Both candidates support alternative energy, but McCain is most clear in supporting nuclear power and offshore drilling. Obama is extremely tentative on both. If Mississippi wins the expected bidding war with Louisiana for a new nuclear plant, the investment will be as much as the Nissan and Toyota plants combined. Thousands of jobs initially and hundreds for years to come. In Claiborne County, the approved site in Mississippi, the people vote about 95 percent Democrat. It’s kind of interesting that by doing so on Nov. 4, they’ll support killing a $5 billion project. With Obama as president, a new nuclear plant in this state becomes much less likely.

With Wall Street imploding, there hasn’t been much said about farm subsidies, defense spending or public works — all important to the economy of Mississippi. Under McCain, the success senior U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran has had in steering money (which, yes, is often called pork) to Mississippi, would be stymied or shut down.

In contrast, Obama is a spender. On many fronts, he says “investing” now will save money later. That rarely happens, but lots of bank accounts get filled up in the attempt.

On taxes, their records are very different, but Obama and McCain are both insisting they will reduce what almost all people pay. Don’t need to spend a lot of time on tax cuts. Not going to happen.

Neither candidate can do much for education in Mississippi. For all their talk about charter schools and vouchers, those are big-city options. In most of this state, kids go to the local public school because the next-nearest school is much too far to travel. Both Obama and McCain also want “accountability.” But that’s also something we’ve heard a lot about for many years, while poorly managed districts with inept administrations linger year after year.

There are many, far more intangible factors to weigh.

One is race.

No state has a higher proportion of African-American citizens than Mississippi and no state has been as challenged and frustrated on questions of racial justice. What effect would result from having a black American as the leader of the free world? Would it make us more race-conscious? Or would it diffuse — or at least help diffuse — continuing tensions?

Of course, we don’t vote as states, nor do we cast our individual ballots with “What’s best for Mississippi?” on our minds. We either vote our own interests or our principles or a combination of both.

On principle, the majority of Mississippians have shown time and again they believe that to the extent government can be minimized, freedom can be maximized. On that basis, McCain will win Mississippi’s electoral votes.

But honesty demands admitting that we are a state that depends on government programs of all sizes and varieties. Under that reality, Obama would be the victor.