Colorado Amendment 36

The Associated Press | 08/16/04 | kcamd

[kcamd]

With regard to the initiative to alter the way Presidential Electors are selected in Colorado, the idea of voting on a measure to change the way an election is conducted for that very same election is patently absurd. One does not change the rules once the process is already underway. On a more substantive note, the proposal in question would essentially eliminate the Electoral College without a U.S. Constitutional Amendment. Presidents are elected by the States, not a general national plebiscite. The purpose is to maintain the integrity of our republic. Without the Electoral College process, states with lesser populations would lose their participation in selecting the President. Our nation was founded as a federation of sovereign states with a relatively weak national government. The majority of power is vested in the states. The current process ensures that all citizens of the various states have a say in selecting our national leader. Under the proposed adulteration, the President could be elected by three or four populous states. That would herald the end of States’ rights. The President is elected by the States to represent the States; hence the President of the United States of America. The People directly elect their Representatives. Thus, the House of Representatives was designed to be the Peoples’ House. Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution charges the state legislatures with establishing the method for holding elections in their respective states for President. It does not provide for those legislatures to abdicate or delegate that specific responsibility. This proposal is nothing more than a veiled attempt to unconstitutionally usurp the power to elect their President from the people. What these proponents cannot obtain by legal ballots, they seek to obtain by chicanery and tomfoolery. We must never allow any dangerous changes like this to take away the peoples’ right to elect the President. We must demand from our State Representatives that they make a pre-emptive declaration by legislation that they and only they under the U. S. Constitution have the authority to designate how elections are held in Colorado and that the apportionment of electoral votes shall not change. We’re waiting…

[wideawake]

Eliminating the electoral college would result in naked sectionalism.

This is an existing problem already - the notion of Red and Blue states is now a commonplace term in the contemporary political vocabulary.

Ripping the heart out of the Constitution to appease sectionalists makes no sense.

[cripplecreek]

I caught a little bit about this proposal on one of the radio shows the other day. It sounds like a group is pushing this proposal but only in states heavilly controled by republicans.

[NeoCaveman]

If they steal the election this way, then next time we have to do the same thing only using Callyfoinya.

[So Cal Rocket]

US CONSTITUTION
Article. II.
Section. 1.
Clause 2: 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.

---

I've stated before on a previous thread that even if this initiative passes, it may be unconstitutional. The Constitution allows for the state legislators to determine how the Electors are to be allocated. So, if the Colorado State Legislature passes a law changing the way the Electors are allocated to a "proportional" method, it would be allowed... However, the people of Colorado do not have the constitutional authority to change the allocation method - even if this Initiative passes 100% to 0%.

[Paleo Conservative]

This initiative violates the federal constitution. Only the state legislatures are empowered to decide the method by which the state's electors shall be chosen. This iniative should be striken from the ballot.

[Paleo Conservative]

All that's required is to read the constitution and follow it. It's not rocket surgery.

[So Cal Rocket]

It's not rocket surgery

Nor brain science.

[Repeal 16-17]

The Democrats and Liberals don't believe in the rule of law, except when it's in their favor. This has been proven by their actions regarding gay marriage.

As far as they are concerned Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 is irrelevant, because Liberals believe that they are the law. They're trying to cause a Constitutional crisis.

See the Supreme Court decision in Hawke v. Smith. In that case the Supreme Court said that a State Legislature could not delegate its authority, to ratify a proposed amendment to the US Constitution, to the people of that State. This case would seem to apply to this initiative. In both cases the Constitution gives authority to the Legislature of each State and so no Legislature can delegate this authority to any other body, to the people of that State.

[joonbug]

Sure, great idea, as long as New York and California have their votes similarly apportioned.

[white trash redneck]

That's what I've read also. It's apparently being pushed by some wealthy California liberal. If he thinks it's such a great idea, maybe California would be a great place to try it out.

Typical DemocRAT "What's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable" thinking.

[Paleo Conservative]

It is unconstitutional, because it is a referendum. The constitution very specifically says that the state legislatures, and only the state legislatures have the authority to determine the method by which electors are chosen! The Colorado legislature very specifically rejected such a system.

As long as large states like California, New York and Texas do not change from a winner take all system, it is not in the interest of small states like Colorado to do so.

I also don't want to forgot to mention that it also violates the federal election code. The method by which the electors is selected must be in place before (as I recall at least six days prior to) the date the electors are chosen which is election day. Even if the a referendum were a valid mechanism of determining the method of allocating electors, this referendum is too late to affect the 2004 election. This referendum should be fought in court and removed from the ballot.

Article II.

Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

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.

[Stop_Neocons]

I think this is a GOOD idea if applied nationwide. The way it works now, if you are a Republican in Rhode Island or a Democrat in Utah (for example) your presidential vote is essentially wasted. Now at least, some proportionality will be added to presidential elections. Candidates won't be pandering to "swing" states so much, since, unlike with a winner-take-all system, the other guy's electoral votes will be counted too. It may also encourage the growth of viable third parties, which the current system suppresses. As the idea picks up steam, I predict a constitutional amendment which will institute the colorado system nationwide.

[dirtboy]

I think this is a GOOD idea if applied nationwide

Applying this nationwide would be in complete opposition of the republican concepts that created the Electoral College in the first place. It is up to the state legislatures how electors are chosen.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Actually it is both. That is why few people understand it and countless books have been written trying to explain it.

Like the Bible the depth and profundity of that document is far beyond the grasp of most ordinary men. It takes years of study to scratch the surface.

[Stop_Neocons]

You missed the whole point of my post, dirtboy. I'm not talking about "republican concepts", rather that a nationwide PROPORTIONAL electoral college sytem (as in Maine, Nebraska and soon Colorado) would be BETTER for the nation.

[dirtboy]

I'm not talking about "republican concepts", rather that a nationwide PROPORTIONAL electoral college sytem (as in Maine, Nebraska and soon Colorado) would be BETTER for the nation.

And I'm saying that the Electoral college is one of the last republican concepts from the founders that has survived basically intact to this day - and gives small states some clout in national elections.

[Stop_Neocons]

"Clout" is just shorthand for "gonna get some pork".

I'll bet you are a republican voter in a solid red state. Try being a republican voter in Massachusetts. You won't even want to get out of bed on election day. The Colorado system would encourage voter turnout, since no vote would be wasted. Finally, as I said before, proportionality would encourage the growth of viable third parties. Sticking to the current EC system just perpetuates "demopublican" (i.e. bland, unimaginative) rule. When George Wallace said there "wasn't a dimes worth of difference" between the dems and repubs, he had a point. That was back in 1968, so maybe there's 50 cents worth of difference now. Still not enough to buy a cup of bad coffee these days.

[dirtboy]

"Clout" is just shorthand for "gonna get some pork".

Clout is also shorthand for "Don't allow East Coasters to run roughshod over western state interests." Among many other things.

I'll bet you are a republican voter in a solid red state.

Wrong. I live in a swing state, Pennsylvania.

Try being a republican voter in Massachusetts. You won't even want to get out of bed on election day.

I wouldn't want to live there, period. I'm allergic to pompous liberals.

The Colorado system would encourage voter turnout, since no vote would be wasted.

If individual states want to change their system of chosing their electors, fine. But Montana ain't gonna change to make your vote in Massachussets count.

Finally, as I said before, proportionality would encourage the growth of viable third parties. Sticking to the current EC system just perpetuates "demopublican" (i.e. bland, unimaginative) rule. When George Wallace said there "wasn't a dimes worth of difference" between the dems and repubs, he had a point. That was back in 1968, so maybe there's 50 cents worth of difference now. Still not enough to buy a cup of bad coffee these days.

I hear similar bleats from some conservatives. Instead of complaining about the system, make your case to the voters for your governing philosophy.

[Stop_Neocons]

"Don't allow East Coasters to run roughshod over western state interests."

They already do. Try drilling for oil in ANWR. Most Alaskans would love to, but the (east coast) feds won't allow it.

"I live in a swing state, Pennsylvania."

Me too! Right in the (red) middle.

"Montana ain't gonna change to make your vote in Massachussets count"

Doesn't matter. A constitutional amendment only needs 38 states to ratify.


"I hear similar bleats from some conservatives"

Just because you call such sentiments "bleats" doesn't mean they are wrong. And it's tough to make a case to the voters regarding a political philosophy when the ruling party (and it is really one party) discourages the development of another political party to present differing views.