Plan would dump Colorado's winner-take-all vote in Nov.

The Rocky Mountain News ^ | 7/31/04 | John J. Sanko

[mondoman]

Colorado could become the first state to scrap its winner-take-all system of casting electoral college votes for president and replace it with one based on a percentage of the popular vote.

Supporters of the Make Your Vote Count campaign filed petitions containing more than 130,000 names Friday with state election officials.

"And close to 20 percent of them (the signatures) are from Republicans," said Democratic political consultant Rick Ridder, campaign spokesman. "We see this as a multi-partisan effort."

The measure would go into effect immediately for this year's presidential battle if voters approve.

Had it been in effect here four years ago, Al Gore would have been elected president.

The plan was denounced by Gov. Bill Owens and Ted Halaby, chairman of the Colorado State Republican Party. They viewed it as a political ploy that could bankrupt Colorado's clout in presidential elections.

"If that passes, Colorado will cease to be a factor in any presidential campaign in the future," Owens said.

Said Halaby, "This whole effort just doesn't pass the smell test."

If the petitions have the signatures of 67,829 registered voters and the measure wins approval in November, then Colorado would apportion its presidential electoral votes in that manner.

It's a winner-take-all system in all other states except Nebraska and Maine.

In those states, the winner of the popular vote gets two electoral votes, with the rest determined by the popular vote within each congressional district. Neither state has ever split its electoral college votes.

If approved, it could become a significant factor in the current race between President Bush and Democratic contender John Kerry.

Although Bush lost the popular election four years ago to Al Gore by 540,520 votes, Bush won the electoral college vote 271-266 to take the presidency.

Bush got all eight of Colorado's electoral college votes - the state will cast nine such votes for this year's election.

If the new proposal had been in effect four years ago, Gore would have won the electoral college vote 269-268. Bush would have received five votes and Gore three from Colorado.

Ridder said the movement in Colorado was part of a nationwide effort to make the presidential election process more responsible to the wishes of all the people. "If every state did it, it would empower smaller states," he said.

Sen. Ron Tupa, D-Boulder, tried unsuccessfully in the 2000 legislative session to get his colleagues to shift to an electoral college voting system like that used by Nebraska and Maine.

He said this plan was even better. "If it passes, it will be the most accurate, the most democratic with a small 'd' and the most representative method that you could vote for president."

But Halaby and Owens said its passage would mean that Colorado's future electoral college balloting would provide only one additional vote for whoever won the popular vote in the state. Because races are generally so close, they said it would always be 5-4 unless there was a landslide.

"If we are in fact a 5-4 state, meaning a net of one, no presidential candidate or campaign would care about Colorado," Owens said.

"If you believe in the fundamental concept of the electoral college, that it gives small states more power compared to big states, then this is clearly not in our best interests as a small state.

"I just hope the voters understand why it is that nine votes makes Colorado of interest during presidential campaigns and one vote would not."

The electoral college issue became the third citizens' initiative to file petitions to get on Colorado's November ballot. Others are a tobacco tax increase and a construction liability proposal that makes it easier for home buyers to sue for defects.

Lawmakers have put two issues on the ballot - one to get rid of obsolete language in the constitution and the other to update the state personnel system.

The final day for filing petitions is Monday.

[mondoman]

I strongly recommend that all FReepers become aware of this low level attempt to affect the outcome of the 2004 election. This initiative is written to go into effect retroactive with THIS election. Colorado is normally a safe Republican Red state, this year is very close (8%). If this passes, Kerry will be able to claim his share of the popular vote.

This is another back door initiative by the liberal wing of politics to undermine the representative republic and replace it with mob-rule. It is very important that this voter initiative receive national attention and be defeated by those who favor representation over direct voting.

[A.A. Cunningham]

"I just hope the voters understand why it is that nine votes makes Colorado of interest during presidential campaigns and one vote would not."

I hope so too. However, a majority of the simpleton electorate in this state voted in favor of Amendment 23 so who knows.

[RonnG]

If this is such a good idea, I wonder why the leftwing would not start this experiment in states like California or New York where it would impact the most people?

[Owen]

>
Had it been in effect here four years ago, Al Gore would have been elected president.
>

Later in the article it says Gore 269 Bush 268. That doesn't win. That puts it into the House of Reps and Bush would have still won there.

But regardless of that, this effort must be stopped. If the Dems want to do something like this, have them do it in California, where we'd get a portion of the 54.

[mwyounce]

Had it been in effect here four years ago, Al Gore would have been elected president.

No he wouldn't...

If the new proposal had been in effect four years ago, Gore would have won the electoral college vote 269-268. Bush would have received five votes and Gore three from Colorado.

I may be wrong, but aren't 270 votes required to elect? If the vote turned out 269-268 it would've gone to the House of Representatives, where Bush would've been chosen there (and if you think the Dems can't get over it now, imagine if the House had picked the President!)

[Skywarner]

Ping!!

Yes, if the Dems think this is such a great idea, I look forward to them implementing this initiative in New York and Massachusettes.

We're waiting. [insert cricket chirping sound here...]

[mwyounce]

Ya beat me to it!

[demlosers]

Ridder said the movement in Colorado was part of a nationwide effort to make the presidential election process more responsible to the wishes of all the people. "If every state did it, it would empower smaller states," he said.

It is not.

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

Had it been in effect here four years ago, Al Gore would have been elected president.

Democrats always try to change the rules in the middle of the game!

I say if it's good for Colorado, it's good for all the states and should be voted on nationally.

If Colorado's plan was implemented nationwide, a Democrat would never be elected again for president.

Just look at the map of counties from 2000!

Bring it on!!

[demlosers]

Another idiot reporter.

[nothingnew]

heads up pinger

FMCDH(BITS)

[The Sons of Liberty]

If I am not mistaken, Maine has a system where the electoral vote is predicated upon how the presidential candidate does in each of their congressional districts. This resulted in Bush / Cheney receiving the eclectoral votes of one district and the Sore / Loserman team receiving the votes from the other in the 2000 election.

Can someone from Maine confirm this?

[dennisw]

The game plan is obvious. It's devious since it's done under the guise of fairness. The Democrats will only do their agitprop for proportional electoral votes in the states that are a Republican lock for president. You will never see them making similar efforts in California and Massachusetts where the Republicans would benefit.

I see the hand of the DNC behind this Colorado effort

[Doe Eyes]

If Colorado's plan was implemented nationwide, a Democrat would never be elected again for president. Just look at the map of counties from 2000!

I think they would award the electors based on the number of votes received, not on the number of counties in which they got the most votes.

[Doe Eyes]

If Colorado's plan was implemented nationwide, a Democrat would never be elected again for president. Just look at the map of counties from 2000!

I think they would award the electors based on the number of votes received, not on the number of counties in which they got the most votes.

[Turbo Pig]

I disagree with using a percentage of the popular vote to break out electoral votes. That method still gives the election power to population heavy areas, which will always be pro-government largess.

I do think that the electoral votes should be distributed via congressional district break out, though. 1 electoral vote goes to the winner of the popular vote in each house district, in a state. 2 electoral votes, representing the ones for the senatorial districts, are cast for the winner of the popular vote, state wide.

The system described makes it important to hit areas that have traditionally been ignored, while still giving weight to the larger states with more Congressional districts and population. I'm sure there is a flaw there somewhere, so go ahead and deconsrtuct, please.

[John W]

talktous@rockymountainnews.com

[Petronski]

Something's fishy: 271 to 266 does not add up to 538, the total number of electoral votes.

[dennisw]

Since the Electoral College allocates each state’s votes (except Maine and Nebraska) in a winner-take-all method, there is no reason for a candidate to campaign in a state that already favors them or their opponent.

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:Too4I7tqBP8J:www.fairvote.org/e_college/problems.htm+electoral+vote+winner+take+all+maine&hl=en

[fml]

"And close to 20 percent of them (the signatures) are from Republicans," said Democratic political consultant Rick Ridder, campaign spokesman. "We see this as a multi-partisan effort."

Or, over 80% are from democrats. Idiot report is right!

[jaguar21]

A D.C. delegate did not vote in protest last time so she would have been Gore's 270th vote in this situation.

[mwyounce]

Ahhh! I was trying to figure out how Gore could have a 269-268 lead and yet not have the majority. That's what was throwing me off!

I didn't even think to do 435 + 100 + 3 = 538!

[Doug Loss]

dennisw, this website fundamentally misunderstands how the Electoral College works. The EC doesn't allocate any state's votes. The state legislatures themselves decide how those votes afre to be allocated. and complaining that the EC vote sometimes contravenes the "popular" vote is another misunderstanding. The bulk popular vote means nothing, since there isn't a uniform national election for president. It's actually 50 simultaneous state elections, with the apportioning of electors determined by state law. In each state, the popular vote majority is a determinant of the electors sent to the EC, but the summed total of the popular vote over the entire country means very little.

[dennisw]

I agree and understand you 100%. Not a good website. I just plucked out two sentences which are true.

[MainFrame65]

"Colorado could become the first state to scrap its winner-take-all system of casting electoral college votes for president and replace it with one based on a percentage of the popular vote."

How can this idiot make this statement when it is followed a dozen sentences later by the Maine and Nebraska examples of divided votes? I would critique the idea, but the last part of the article itself actually makes all of my points rather well. It's a really, REALLY dumb idea, for all the reasons discussed, but especially because it would reduce the electoral value of the state down to a single vote. Worse than South Dakota....

[dennisw]

The Electoral College - Maine and Nebraska
Maine and Nebraska. Maine and Nebraska both use an alternative method of distributing
their electoral votes, called the Congressional District Method. ...
www.fairvote.org/e_college/me_ne.htm - 7k - Cached - Similar pages

[Bigh4u2]

Technically, it would be unconstitutional!

From: Article II
"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector. "


"The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

States may not change the voting procedure.

Only Congress can vote on a change, and that would apply to all states.

[Dane]

Another thing, say if Nader get 4% of the vote. Does he get .4 of an elector?

I doubt this will pass, especially with the popular Governor of Colorado against it, but I wouldn't take nothing for granted.

[tort_feasor]

I think 1 elector voted for Liberman for president.

[dufekin]

And all of that would be on the back of a faithless elector who refused to vote for Gore. This "heroic" elector hailed from the District of Columbia, Al Gore's home.

Otherwise, the election would have tipped to Gore 270-268. Talk about close.

The pre-convention electoral college race is Bush 274, Kerry 264. Split Colorado 6-3 (which I think is a little more like the real balance there than 5-4) and throw in one Kerry vote from Nebraska (I know, it's a stretch) and you've got...Bush 270, Kerry 268. How faithful are our electors?

[Dane]

Otherwise, the election would have tipped to Gore 270-268. Talk about close.

Actually Nader got 5% of the vote in Colorado in 2000. He under this cockymaimie plan would have gotten .5 of an elector so Gore would have had 269.5 electors, not 270.

[sharktrager]

Well, since Maine and Nebraska have an allocation system already, you may want to rethink your argument.

[P-Marlowe]

Yes, if the Dems think this is such a great idea, I look forward to them implementing this initiative in New York and Massachusettes.

Don't forget California!

[Condor51]

"We see this as a multi-partisan effort."
Or, over 80% are from democrats. Idiot report is right!

---

Ah, I assume you've never been to journalism school. The '1st Rule' of political reporting is;

1. Any Bill or Law that receives the backing of One Republican shall be reported as 'Bipartisan'. However if it's a republican sponsored Bill and/or Law and 49% of Democrats back it, said bill and/or law shall be reported as a 'Partisan' effort by Republicans to stifle opposition voices and is a direct threat to the democratic process.

~~semi sarcasm off~~
Wait..... that's the truth isn't it????

I'm sorry, carry on.
:-)

[dufekin]

The flaw in your reasoning is that Congressional districts are so intensely gerrymandered that the real fight for the Presidency would devolve upon the authorities in each of the respective states that determine Congressional district boundaries. Absent the redistricting effort of last year, Texas, for example, might deliver a majority of its electoral votes for Kerry rather than all to Bush.

Extremely few members of Congress face any serious challenger during any give election cycle, and granting each district an electoral vote only would increase the gerrymandering incentive and quite possibly the frequency of hyper-partisan redistricting battles. The number of Congressional districts in serious contention during any given Presidential election very well might be even fewer than the number of states now in contention.

The election, therefore, almost certainly would be an exercise in futility, its results essentially preordained by a partisan political machine.

[mabelkitty]

They have a lock on both states, so they don't stand to benefit in any way.

[Libertina]

Yes, but they won't be pushing to implement this initiative in any place but where it helps them... Just as Al Goreleoni only wanted ballots re-counted in favorable Florida districts.

[dufekin]

Sorry, but electors are discrete, as the Constitution requires them to be bona fide living, breathing human beings (although not in those words), so there's no way to split an elector. Exactly how one might convert the vote percentages into electors is a matter of some mathematical debate, much the same as the method of apportioning membership in the House of Representatives among the several States.

[Dane]

Sorry, but electors are discrete, as the Constitution requires them to be bona fide living, breathing human beings (although not in those words), so there's no way to split an elector

I understand that but a good arguement in court would be since they are being divied proportionately any candidate who gets a vote should get a portion of the elector pie.

This proposal is a mess and should be argued as such.

[EEDUDE]

Just like my seven year old daughter who wants to change the rules in the middle of the game if she's not winning!

This kind of crap will tear the US apart.

[SauronOfMordor]

Technically, it would be unconstitutional!

No it wouldn't: "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress"

There's nothing in the Constitution mandating "winner takes all". There's nothing in the Constitution mandating a direct popular vote. In Florida 2000, the way the Florida laws were set up, if there was no uncontested winner in the election by the federal electoral college deadline, the law mandated that the FL legislature pick a winner and be done with it.

[deport]

Technically, it would be unconstitutional!

---

Based upon what?..... not the quotes you cite, huh?
..........From: Article II
"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, ..........

States have changed their methods of allocation in the past..... examples are Maine and Nebraska which use the CD method plus two statewide at large representing the two senators....

[Let's Roll]

The dims want to cherry pick their states just like they tried to do with Florida counties for recount in 2000.

Wake up Colorado - torpedo this thing.

[Dane]

"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress"

If God forbid this mess did pass, since it is a voter intiative and not a legislative bill by a legislature, would be a good arguement in court to strike this mess down.

And I'm not thinking this thing will pass, just thinking out of the box and about the Constitutional consequences.

[tjwmason]

This is another back door initiative by the liberal wing of politics to undermine the representative republic and replace it with mob-rule.

That's what struck me. As a good English Monarchist, I'm not a natural fan of republics, but yours has been doing very well for a couple of hundred years (far longer than most republics last), and the very indirectness of some elections has contributed to that. Turning America into a democracy would be a very grave mistake, and would only serve to deepen the wounds of present cultural clashes.

The Electoral College ain't broke, so don't fix it.

[The Bandit]

One other risk of this is the greater potential of forcing ties in the general electrol count.

[mollynme]

My guess is that most of the pubbies who signed the petition didn't understand it. The guy that tried to get my signature outside of the grocery store explained it as "making every vote count" (or something like that). Since I never sign anything I haven't researched, I told him I'd think about it.

[MainFrame65]

Yes, I was aware of the difference, but it makes the situation worse instead of better. If they do this, they might never see a candidate again. Really, I think it is a trivial detail instead of a fundamental difference, but it is a difference, as you correctly point out.

[fml]

I told him I'd think about it.

Thats what sets us apart from them

[Congressman Billybob]

This is yet another example of incompetent reporting. This would not be the "first" instance of a divided state Electoral College vote. Both Maine and Nebraska currently have "District" voting for the College. And a total of 21 states have had that process at some time in their histories.

However, no state has ever adopted proportional voting for any purpose. That is the voting method which hands a few seats to the most kooky political groups in Europe, Israel, etc. THAT is the reason this initiative should fail.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "The Wussification of America: Fallout from Arnold, John and Sandy"

If you haven't already joined the anti-CFR effort, please click here.