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

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

[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.

[sweetliberty]

Y'all check out the RATs latest dirty trick to try and undermine our elections. They want to skew all elections in favor of the RAT infested urban cesspools.

[sweetliberty]

"I wonder why the leftwing would not start this experiment in states like California or New York where it would impact the most people?"

Maybe because they already have those states tucked away in the "safe" column.

[lepton]

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.

Any day from the sixth day prior to the electoral college meeting.

Also, in the case of Florida, the law required 20 days, plus an undefined period for judicial ruling in order to contest the certified results, prior to those six days, else the legislature would be free to ignore the courts.

[supercat]

"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.

Congress controls the deadline for states' selection of electors, and sets the date on which the electors are required to give their votes (it's not required that the Electoral College actually meet). That does not means that states cannot choose the means by which they select their own electors.

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

If a state wanted to appoint its legislature in some truly wacky fashion, it would be within their authority to do so. Any legislature that tried to do anything too bizare, however, would likely face unelection.

[Paleo Conservative]

This initiative is written to go into effect retroactive with THIS election.

That would be a violation of federal law and the US Constitution. The method of allowcating a state's electoral vote can only be changed prior to the election. Second, the constitution very explicitly states that the state legislature and only the legislature may determine the method of allocating electoral votes. That was the basis of the ruling in Bush v Gore in 2000.

[Paleo Conservative]

Technically, it would be unconstitutional!

No it wouldn't: "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct

Like hell it isn't unconstitutional. A referendum is not the legislature!

[supercat]

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.

I would like to see districts drawn by the following procedure:

• Map data listing the locations of voters is made available to the public.
• Any interested party is allowed to submit a districting plan, which will be kept confidential until all plans are submitted.
• Each plan has computed a 'total Gerrymander ratio', which is the sum of all the districts' individual Gerrymander ratios, which is in turn defined as the ratio of the square of a district's perimeter to its area.
• The plan with the smallest 'total Gerrymander ratio' would be selected.

[arthurus]

This sort of thing is meant to only happen in Republican majority states. That would give the crats electoral votes in the Republican states without giving up any in the Crat states.

[Future Useless Eater]

If this type of system exists in several states, and we someday have a very close election where someone wins by just a few electoral votes, THEN every square inch of every one of those states would become battle zones by post-election mobsters.

The most corrupt precincts could be effective at swinging a few hundred or thousand more votes.

This would be a nightmare and it would flush the 'clout' of larger states down the sewer.

[Future Useless Eater]

Its hard to believe Colorado WANTS to have about as much clout
in presidential elections.....

as PUERTO RICO !!!