Posted on 09/29/2004 4:53:03 PM PDT by mondoman
Around our consulting firm, any mediocre, half-baked suggestion is greeted with the retort, "Well, that's not the dumbest idea I've ever heard."
But then, every so often, along comes an idea so profoundly lacking in merit that it perhaps qualifies for that dubious distinction as one of the dumbest ideas ever.
Amendment 36 is such a misguided, mischievous idea.
This is not a debate about the efficacy or wisdom of the Electoral College. If there is to be such a debate, it needs to occur on the national level, perhaps leading to a proposed amendment to our federal constitution.
But the notion that a single state - in this case, Colorado - should unilaterally disenfranchise itself and voluntarily withdraw from meaningful participation in the Electoral College process is the height of foolishness.
Amendment 36's unprecedented, convoluted scheme for proportionally allocating Colorado's electoral votes would serve to effectively reduce Colorado's electoral vote tally from nine to one. No matter if President George Bush was to press his advantage and win Colorado handily, or if Sen. John Kerry was to mount a comeback and carry the state, the victor would gain only one electoral vote.
Out of the 270 electoral votes necessary to elect a president, Colorado effectively would provide but a single, solitary vote. We would be reduced to having one-third the influence of any of the least-populated states - Wyoming, Alaska and Delaware, among others - with three electoral votes apiece.
Colorado's political influence and impact would be virtually nil. That could not bode well for Colorado's future and our ability to gain Washington's attention and assistance in meeting pressing needs.
Amendment 36 did not even originate in Colorado. This plot was hatched in California. Wealthy Californians are using Colorado as some kind of private laboratory to concoct some partisan advantage.
The unmistakable sign of the blatant political motivation is the fact that Amendment 36 is retroactive. That violates Colorado's traditions and spirit of fair play. In politics, as in sports, the rules should be changed for the coming season, not in the middle of the current one.
Colorado should reject Amendment 36.
Eric Sondermann is a founder and principal of a Denver-based public policy and communications firm, a longtime Democratic consultant, and registered as an unaffiliated voter for the last five years.
Anybody know how likely it is to pass?
And if it does, wouldn't it be cool if it turned out to work to Kerry's disadvantage?
Like, duuuhhh!
It would help Kerry and hurt CO for years to come.
Drew Garrett
I guess I don't get it. Isn't this just about as likely to work to the disadvantage of either party?
Are you series?
If Bush wins CO, which he will (kerry has pulled out) he gets ALL the votes!
EC is winner take all, except maine. IF the plan passes bush only gets +1 net in the EC college.
Splitting the EC vote is entirely up to the state. For a State like Colorado it is stupid...it dramatically reduces their influence and the attention they would get. But for other states, especially large states strongly on one side or the other, it could increase their influence and attention. Look at CA, NY or TX. All of those states are essentially ignored because they are a given. If they split their votes, they would get a lot more attention. Relatively minor moves in CA or NY or TX could be worth more than a small state.
It would effectively reduce Colorado to a single electoral vote because the electoral votes will always be divided by a 5-4 count unless one candidate wins a huge landslide (I think the winning candidate needs 62% of the vote in order to increase the electoral vote split from 5-4 to 6-3).
Once presidential candidates realize that there is only a 1-EV difference between winning and losing the state, they won't even bother spending any time or money campaigning there.
I would even take it once step further, too. If Colorado follows through on such a plan, then it would become a prime target for third-party candidates -- because a candidate would only need about 11% of the popular vote in order to get one of the nine electoral votes. I could see this turning into the kind of state where each major candidate gets 3 electoral votes, and three other minor candidates get 1 electoral vote apiece.
I guess I was thinking more longterm. In any given election, it seems like it might hurt Democrats as much as Republicans.
BTW, if a similar system was in place here in CA (55 votes), it would really pitch a monkey wrench into calculations!
However, I assume Democrats would only be in favor of such a system in states where they don't already hold a huge advantage. CA and MA aren't likely to have it on the ballot anytime soon.
Ir is running ahead in the last poll but I haven't seen any ads for or against it yet. I expect it to go down to defeat simply because it is bad for Colorado and Colorado voters are a pretty savvy lot. On your second point...The only way this would work to Kerry's disadvantage is if Kerry won the popular vote in Colorado. That would not be cool at all.
Right the idea for the CO bill came from CA! har har.
But I like the winner take all system. It gives the rural states a bigger voice and makes candidates campaign in all places, not just the big cities.
Reliance on the federal government.................. It's a way of life in colorado.
Not really. I'm in CA and haven't seen a single TV ad.
Not that I'm complaining about that!
Meanwhile my family in FL is inundated with them.
In a proportional or direct vote system, both candidates would be forced to campaign in CA and every other state.
Not that I'm in favor of that.
I really don't think it matters a great deal what system we use as long as nobody tries to change it after the election, as they attempted in FL last time.
We need an amendment to OUTLAW LAWYERS!
RIght. The big markets would get all of the attention and rural areas would get ignored.
Which would be fair enough.
What gripes me is candidates campaigning under an accepted set of rules and then whining that those rules aren't fair when they lose.
That why it is important that the dems kount the votes komrade
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.