Posted on 10/06/2004 12:47:51 PM PDT by jebanks
Colo. - Colorado will be the focal point on Election Day for one of the most intriguing proposed changes in American presidential politics since women were given the right to vote. Facing Colorado voters on Nov. 2: a ballot measure to change the state constitution so that Colorado's nine electoral votes would be allocated in proportion to the popular vote in the state instead of a winner-take-all basis. Colorado and 47 other states now use the winner-take-all method in presidential elections. If approved by voters, Colorado's measure could begin a state-by-state change in the electoral vote system, without proponents having to go to the trouble of attempting to amend the U.S. Constitution. If George Bush got 52 percent of the popular vote in Colorado on Nov. 2, he'd be allocated five electoral votes instead of all nine. If Democratic candidate John Kerry got 47 percent of the Colorado vote, he'd get four electoral votes, instead of none. Were it to be approved by the voters and upheld by the courts, the ballot measure could boost Kerry, currently trailing in the latest Colorado poll at 39 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Doing this in all fifty states would kill the Democrats, who had better be very careful what they wish for.
" I didn't like it when he compared our troops to Jen-jis Khan.
I don't like his stance on jun control.
And I think John Kerry is jonna jet me killed."
Never happen. Unconstitutional...then again so is murder of an unborn child!
Maybe the Republicans should introduce a bill to split CALIFORNIA's electoral votes. That would teach the Democrats!
Hmph, split California's electoral votes.
That would be easy, just build a wall around SF and LA and that would be the end of it.
Cheers!
Hehe, yah, just what I was thinking. It wouldn't be good policy, if it starts, why not do it in all 50 states? We would NEVER lose another presidential election.
This will fail on two levels. The Constitution grants the power to determine the method for selecting electors solely to the respective state legislatures - a referendum on this matter would be a clear violation, even in this day and age. In addition, McPherson v. Blacker makes it clear (well, clear to everyone except for a few Florida Supreme Court Justices) that you cannot change the rules of an election during an election - and this referendum will attempt to be applicable to this election.
So this one is more dead on arrival than today's Kerry/Edwards foreign policy proposal.
In a related parody link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1225375/posts
LOL
"Yes please make my state worth one electoral vote too!" jeez
I guess it's "who cares about states rights" when states themselves are throwing their power away.
States already lost their say in the federal government when the 17th amendment was passed -- this just follows in giving the last shred of dignity with it.
No point in even pretending to call the U.S. a "republic" anymore if this ever takes hold.
Colorado has 9 electoral votes. The number of votes going to each candidate is rounded to the nearest whole number. Think about it. In a close race the winner gets 5 votes and the loser gets 4 votes. The winner has to get almost 62% before he gets 6 electoral votes with the loser getting 3 votes.
So in most cases Colorado would be a 1 electoral vote state, less than Wyoming or Alaska who each have 3 votes.
Try this in California with 54 electoral votes and it is more interesing for the Republicans. The whole purpose of this exercise (which was put on the ballot by a California professor) is to split the votes to help the democrats
Would it? Sure states like California would send some votes to the GOP but states like Texas would send votes to the Democrats as well. If this was in place in 2000 then Al Gore would be running for reelection.
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.
If this passes it is very dangerous to the election process. Electoral votes are based on population of the whole state. Splitting the electoral votes could shift major voting blocs to populated urban areas where population is concentrated, leaving the remainder of electoral votes to the lesser populated rural areas.
The votes of the entire state have to be counted now.
With election corruption on the rise, there is already a lack of accountability in many urban precincts.
This is very dangerous. Rural voters will be the ones disenfranchised. Since rural voters tend to be more conservative, the whole plan is evident. Suppress the vote, bring on the socialists.
There is a way to split EV's that would pass Constitutional muster and would be acceptable--do it according to Congressional districts. Ohio has 18 districts, plus two Senators. Say in Ohio, in 7 districts, Kerry wins, and in 11, Bush wins. Bush wins the whole state. We have - 7 for Kerry, and 11 for Bush plus the 2 Senatorial EV's go to the overall winner - Bush. Bush would get 13 and Kerry 7 in this scenario. Kinda like what Maine does.
I fully expect that we'll start seeing this in other states where dimocrats lose on a regular basis.
Look at Michigan. We tend to lose in michigan because of 5 or 6 democrat heavy counties out of the total 83. If republicans start winning the democrats will whine that they don't get a fair shot. If that happens I expect the democrats will be seeking the same deal.
I'm willing to accept a loss by the set rules because changing the rules to get my way is just plain wrong.
This would be disasterous.
The Urban Centers would control everything, and the country folk would lose their voice.
Of course, this is exactly what the totalitarian statists in the CommiecRAT party want, since the country is very clearly divided politically according to the Urban vs. Rural demographic.
And the CommiecRATs own the Urban Vote.
The Electoral College is designed to achieve a decision, and to confer legitimacy. Problem is, it can't confer legitimacy if the MSM is chearleading for its demise.
Truth-be-told there is absolutely no way that you can guarantee that the popular vote was NOT tinkered with.
don't they understand that if they give 6 to one candidate and 3 to the other, then they effectively only "have" THREE, and are THAT much less important?!?
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.