"You can't actually know that swings would be uniform. For instance, Perot-voters in some states might be more Clinton-friendly than those in other states. "
Since we lack other data, this is the best assumption:
Perot : half and half.
In addotion, eleminate the nationwide Clinton's victory impact, by adding half of his victory margin to the RNC.
I'm not arguing that, only pointing out that it's an assumption which is flawed, since we pretty much know it's wrong. (look at any election, swings aren't uniform. Ever.). So it's not a magic device, just another perspective that might or might not help us analyze elections.
