Posted on 07/31/2004 6:04:04 AM PDT by mondoman
Colorado could become the first state to scrap its winner-take-all system of casting electoral college votes for president and replace it with one based on a percentage of the popular vote.
Supporters of the Make Your Vote Count campaign filed petitions containing more than 130,000 names Friday with state election officials.
"And close to 20 percent of them (the signatures) are from Republicans," said Democratic political consultant Rick Ridder, campaign spokesman. "We see this as a multi-partisan effort."
The measure would go into effect immediately for this year's presidential battle if voters approve.
Had it been in effect here four years ago, Al Gore would have been elected president.
The plan was denounced by Gov. Bill Owens and Ted Halaby, chairman of the Colorado State Republican Party. They viewed it as a political ploy that could bankrupt Colorado's clout in presidential elections.
"If that passes, Colorado will cease to be a factor in any presidential campaign in the future," Owens said.
Said Halaby, "This whole effort just doesn't pass the smell test."
If the petitions have the signatures of 67,829 registered voters and the measure wins approval in November, then Colorado would apportion its presidential electoral votes in that manner.
It's a winner-take-all system in all other states except Nebraska and Maine.
In those states, the winner of the popular vote gets two electoral votes, with the rest determined by the popular vote within each congressional district. Neither state has ever split its electoral college votes.
If approved, it could become a significant factor in the current race between President Bush and Democratic contender John Kerry.
Although Bush lost the popular election four years ago to Al Gore by 540,520 votes, Bush won the electoral college vote 271-266 to take the presidency.
Bush got all eight of Colorado's electoral college votes - the state will cast nine such votes for this year's election.
If the new proposal had been in effect four years ago, Gore would have won the electoral college vote 269-268. Bush would have received five votes and Gore three from Colorado.
Ridder said the movement in Colorado was part of a nationwide effort to make the presidential election process more responsible to the wishes of all the people. "If every state did it, it would empower smaller states," he said.
Sen. Ron Tupa, D-Boulder, tried unsuccessfully in the 2000 legislative session to get his colleagues to shift to an electoral college voting system like that used by Nebraska and Maine.
He said this plan was even better. "If it passes, it will be the most accurate, the most democratic with a small 'd' and the most representative method that you could vote for president."
But Halaby and Owens said its passage would mean that Colorado's future electoral college balloting would provide only one additional vote for whoever won the popular vote in the state. Because races are generally so close, they said it would always be 5-4 unless there was a landslide.
"If we are in fact a 5-4 state, meaning a net of one, no presidential candidate or campaign would care about Colorado," Owens said.
"If you believe in the fundamental concept of the electoral college, that it gives small states more power compared to big states, then this is clearly not in our best interests as a small state.
"I just hope the voters understand why it is that nine votes makes Colorado of interest during presidential campaigns and one vote would not."
The electoral college issue became the third citizens' initiative to file petitions to get on Colorado's November ballot. Others are a tobacco tax increase and a construction liability proposal that makes it easier for home buyers to sue for defects.
Lawmakers have put two issues on the ballot - one to get rid of obsolete language in the constitution and the other to update the state personnel system.
The final day for filing petitions is Monday.
This is another back door initiative by the liberal wing of politics to undermine the representative republic and replace it with mob-rule. It is very important that this voter initiative receive national attention and be defeated by those who favor representation over direct voting.
I hope so too. However, a majority of the simpleton electorate in this state voted in favor of Amendment 23 so who knows.
If this is such a good idea, I wonder why the leftwing would not start this experiment in states like California or New York where it would impact the most people?
>
Had it been in effect here four years ago, Al Gore would have been elected president.
>
Later in the article it says Gore 269 Bush 268. That doesn't win. That puts it into the House of Reps and Bush would have still won there.
But regardless of that, this effort must be stopped. If the Dems want to do something like this, have them do it in California, where we'd get a portion of the 54.
No he wouldn't...
If the new proposal had been in effect four years ago, Gore would have won the electoral college vote 269-268. Bush would have received five votes and Gore three from Colorado.
I may be wrong, but aren't 270 votes required to elect? If the vote turned out 269-268 it would've gone to the House of Representatives, where Bush would've been chosen there (and if you think the Dems can't get over it now, imagine if the House had picked the President!)
Ping!!
Yes, if the Dems think this is such a great idea, I look forward to them implementing this initiative in New York and Massachusettes.
We're waiting. [insert cricket chirping sound here...]
Ya beat me to it!
It is not.
Democrats always try to change the rules in the middle of the game!
I say if it's good for Colorado, it's good for all the states and should be voted on nationally.
If Colorado's plan was implemented nationwide, a Democrat would never be elected again for president.
Just look at the map of counties from 2000!
Bring it on!!
Another idiot reporter.
FMCDH(BITS)
Can someone from Maine confirm this?
I see the hand of the DNC behind this Colorado effort
I think they would award the electors based on the number of votes received, not on the number of counties in which they got the most votes.
I think they would award the electors based on the number of votes received, not on the number of counties in which they got the most votes.
Something's fishy: 271 to 266 does not add up to 538, the total number of electoral votes.
Since the Electoral College allocates each state’s votes (except Maine and Nebraska) in a winner-take-all method, there is no reason for a candidate to campaign in a state that already favors them or their opponent.
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:Too4I7tqBP8J:www.fairvote.org/e_college/problems.htm+electoral+vote+winner+take+all+maine&hl=en
Or, over 80% are from democrats. Idiot report is right!
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.