I didn't notice the "etc.", which I guess says to have a big tail. A big tail allows the CG to go back, which reduces hinge moment (control load). I thought you were referring to reduced hinge moment, the capablility to move the CG back, and drag as virtues of a low-aspect-ratio tail, which they are not: elevator hinge moment is approximately proportional to elevator area x chord. Tail effectiveness is a function of size and shape. (I can send you a spreadsheet that gives a better answer than tail volume, but is still easy to find the numbers for.) Textbooks say, for good reason, that you can ignore stab drag for stability purposes. I have been pestering people to explain why they use low-aspect-ratio tails, because I am planning not to do so on my new dog. I haven't read Ted's article, so I was curious as to what it said.
Using the aforementioned spreadsheet, I figure that the tail on my current airplane is 82% as effective as a standard Impact's. The one I intended to put on my new dog would have been about 113% as effective as a standard Impact's tail. However, I sanded the tips backward: roundy at the TE and tapered toward the LE. This wouldn't have fit the elevators, so I recarved the tips, reducing the aspect ratio and reducing the tail effectiveness to 106% of that of a standard Impact.
Best I can figure, a low tail aspect ratio gives a stiffer tail, which is good. Also, a large stab chord makes the Reynolds number higher, which could keep the laminar-turbulent transition point from misbehaving, if I correctly understand Igor.