Electoral Conundrum

The Denver Post ^ | 9/17/04 | Reggie Rivers

[mondoman]

Reggie Rivers, former Denver Bronco, now a Renaissance Man commentator and supposed Libertarian.

regrivers@msn.com

[dirtboy]

What happens during our presidential elections goes beyond disenfranchisement, because your vote actually gets converted into an endorsement of the person you voted against.

And that "happens" in every other election, you moron.

[KC_Conspirator]

How is this proposal being taken. Is this nonsense going to pass? It literally will devalue Colorado electorally.

[atomicpossum]

How about the authoritarian rule of a few dense urban centers running roughshod over the rest of the country's interests?

[Mikey_1962]

Worked well 200 years with very few problems... no need to change

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

You could have the legislature do this.

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.

[MarkT]

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.

[MrChips]

Question for anyone . . . if it passes, and is applied to the 2004 election, can it be challenged successfully in court?

[VisualizeSmallerGovernment]

Worked well 200 years with very few problems... no need to change

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.

[AChargeToKeep]

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!

[mondoman]

This amendment is polling strong, the opponents (Coloradans against a really stupid idea) are nonstarters. Little or no advertising from either partisans as yet. The polling shows it will pass.

This referendum has national consequences as it IS WRITTEN TO apply to the 2004 electoral college allocation of Colorado's electors in a very tight race. If this race is decided as closely as 2000, Colorado will be in the national spotlight Amendment 36 as evaluated by the courts for constitutionality.

[Cal Gonzalez]

i want a crack at cali's 55 votes

[Gingersnap]

"How is this proposal being taken?"

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.

[finnman69]

Let's see this happen in CA or NY

[dalight]

There have been several discussions of this topic here. The consensus seems to keep ending up that this choice would cause Colorado to have only effectively 1 electoral vote. Making them never a "battleground" state with all of the benefits that that brings.

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.

[finnman69]

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.

[xenophiles]

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.

Maintaining or achieving power is what political parties do, especially old ones. If Colorado is divided as you say, then it is both parties' interests to keep the winner-take-all rule, because it prevents a third party like, say, the Libertarians from ever taking root.

[Radix]

If this happens, Colorado becomes completely irrelevant.

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.

[unlearner]

" 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).

[Core_Conservative]

if it passes, and is applied to the 2004 election, can it be challenged successfully in court?

Only the states system. It SHOULD NEVER make it to the FEDERAL system.