How about the authoritarian rule of a few dense urban centers running roughshod over the rest of the country's interests?
Posted on 09/30/2004 8:19:22 AM PDT by mondoman
The proposed Amendment 36 to the Colorado Constitution would change the way Electoral College votes are awarded in the state. Proponents say we need this reform because too many citizens are disenfranchised under the current system; however, I believe "disenfranchised" isn't a strong enough word.
What happens during our presidential elections goes beyond disenfranchisement, because your vote actually gets converted into an endorsement of the person you voted against.
In a typical election - say, for mayor - if you vote for the losing candidate, then your vote simply didn't carry the day. It doesn't have any residual power. But in a presidential election, if you vote for a candidate who loses in your state, then the winner basically gets to pick up your vote and carry it forward into the national arena as if you actually voted for him.
This is easier to understand if you minimize the scale. Suppose you live in a neighborhood of 50 houses, and the homeowners are planning a block party. Spread among the 50 houses are 535 people, and there's a big controversy about the menu for the party. Roughly half of the residents want hamburgers and hot dogs, while the other half want only vegetarian fare.
The neighborhood association decides to vote on the issue, but there's a wrinkle: Each person gets a vote, but each house operates under a winner-takes-all system.
There are nine people in your house. Each of you casts a vote for your preferred meal, and the tally is 5-4 in favor of vegetarian. Since it's winner-takes-all, your vote for hamburgers is immediately converted into a vote for vegetarian. Your house then tells the neighborhood association that all nine of you want mushrooms and tofu.
That's how our Electoral College system works. Colorado has nine electoral votes, and whichever candidate wins the popular election in the state gets all nine votes. In the block party example, if you and the other meat-eaters didn't live in that house, there wouldn't be nine votes to allocate. There would be only five. Your presence created those extra four votes, so how can it be logical or fair to assign them to something other than what you voted for?
At the moment, Colorado is a Republican state, so Republicans are content with the status quo because it will give them nine electoral votes for George W. Bush. If the Democrats were in control, they too would be content to have all nine votes for John Kerry.
But our major parties are so focused on maintaining or achieving power that they can't see the advantages that would accrue to both sides if this amendment passes.
Colorado is an evenly divided state. In our national representation, we have three solidly Republican congressional districts, two solidly Democratic districts and two that could swing either way. Republican Pete Coors and Democrat Ken Salazar appear to be in a dead heat for the U.S. Senate seat, and before Republican Gov. Bill Owens took office, Democrat Roy Romer held the state's top post for 12 years.
The balance of power in Colorado could easily shift to the Democrats, in which case Republicans would be glad to win four electoral votes rather than none.
Thus, Amendment 36's backers can argue that under their plan Democrats wouldn't be forced to vote for George W. Bush, Republicans wouldn't be forced to vote for John Kerry, and everyone could go the polls with the assurance that his vote will be counted only for his candidate.
regrivers@msn.com
And that "happens" in every other election, you moron.
How is this proposal being taken. Is this nonsense going to pass? It literally will devalue Colorado electorally.
How about the authoritarian rule of a few dense urban centers running roughshod over the rest of the country's interests?
Worked well 200 years with very few problems... no need to change
For that matter, you could have the legislature simply decide who the state's electors will be, without any popular vote for that office at all.
The decision is after all specifically left to the state legislatures by the Constitution. As the Supreme Court emphasized in the aftermath of the 'oo election.
If you do not like the Constitution, change it...there is a well established and tried process...of course, you may not like it because it deals with convincing a lot of people who may not agree with you. This is a democratic republic, if - as Ben Franklin observed - we can keep it - it most assuredly is not a raw democracy - if it were, blacks might still be slaves but certainly would not be voting in many parts of the country nor would women, etc. Be grateful for the system you have.
Question for anyone . . . if it passes, and is applied to the 2004 election, can it be challenged successfully in court?
The Electoral College was actually a compromise. Most people wanted the president to be elected by the House Of Representatives. It was assumed by the framers that it would be very rare for any single person to get a majority of the electoral vote and that elections would almost always be decided by the House.
If this happens, Colorado becomes completely irrelevant. Why would any candidate spend time in Colorado if they would gain one electoral vote at the most. That's the whole point of the electoral system. Just to show that this is a political ploy, ask the same people who support this if we should do this if we should do this in California too? And this measure is retroactive to this election too! Talk about changing the rules in the middle of an election! Everyone in Colorado needs to tell their friends to vote against this or we will be the Florida of 2004!
i want a crack at cali's 55 votes
Well, I haven't spoken to everybody in the state but those I have spoken to don't like the idea. I don't think it will pass.
Let's see this happen in CA or NY
This is because this is about all that will be able to be delivered in any normal campaign by focusing on this state. Thus, Colorado will fall off of the election map until they have a change of heart. The retroactive provision of this amendment is very likely unconstitutional. The funny thing is that the folks who are selling this idea will have the stupidity of it come back to haunt.
Very stupid to base it on the popular vote. It would make far more snese to base it on congressional districts if they wanted to not have a winner take all. There would still be incentive to hit swing districts.
That is so in future elections unless other states follow suit. If Colorado's votes were divided in this fashion 4 years ago then Gore would be president. A change of this magnitude in 2004 in November should not be allowed to take place as it is an election year. It would completely disrupt the process.
I think this law would be challenged to the Supreme Court if it passes. OTOH if this policy were to be implemented by all 50 states then Bush would likely still win this year as well as 4 years ago. Ultimately if Colorado goes with this then it would be detrimental to them in various ways. It is a sucker vote and that is what the Democrats are counting on.
" then the winner basically gets to pick up your vote and carry it forward into the national arena as if you actually voted for him."
No, electoral votes are not based on the number of voters. They are based on census population data. How a state casts its electoral votes is up to the state.
But using this electoral model is not up to Reggie Rivers (thank God).
Only the states system. It SHOULD NEVER make it to the FEDERAL system.
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.