Skip to comments.
Plan would dump Colorado's winner-take-all vote in Nov.
The Rocky Mountain News ^
| 7/31/04
| John J. Sanko
Posted on 07/31/2004 6:04:04 AM PDT by mondoman
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-96 next last
To: Owen
A D.C. delegate did not vote in protest last time so she would have been Gore's 270th vote in this situation.
21
posted on
07/31/2004 6:32:46 AM PDT
by
jaguar21
To: jaguar21
Ahhh! I was trying to figure out how Gore could have a 269-268 lead and yet not have the majority. That's what was throwing me off!
I didn't even think to do 435 + 100 + 3 = 538!
22
posted on
07/31/2004 6:35:47 AM PDT
by
mwyounce
To: dennisw
dennisw, this website fundamentally misunderstands how the Electoral College works. The EC doesn't allocate any state's votes. The state legislatures themselves decide how those votes afre to be allocated. and complaining that the EC vote sometimes contravenes the "popular" vote is another misunderstanding. The bulk popular vote means nothing, since there isn't a uniform national election for president. It's actually 50 simultaneous state elections, with the apportioning of electors determined by state law. In each state, the popular vote majority is a determinant of the electors sent to the EC, but the summed total of the popular vote over the entire country means very little.
To: Doug Loss
I agree and understand you 100%. Not a good website. I just plucked out two sentences which are true.
24
posted on
07/31/2004 6:42:56 AM PDT
by
dennisw
(Once is Happenstance. Twice is Coincidence. The third time is Enemy action. - Ian Fleming)
To: 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."How can this idiot make this statement when it is followed a dozen sentences later by the Maine and Nebraska examples of divided votes? I would critique the idea, but the last part of the article itself actually makes all of my points rather well. It's a really, REALLY dumb idea, for all the reasons discussed, but especially because it would reduce the electoral value of the state down to a single vote. Worse than South Dakota....
To: MainFrame65
26
posted on
07/31/2004 6:58:14 AM PDT
by
dennisw
(Once is Happenstance. Twice is Coincidence. The third time is Enemy action. - Ian Fleming)
To: RonnG
Technically, it would be unconstitutional!
From: Article II
"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. "
"The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.
States may not change the voting procedure.
Only Congress can vote on a change, and that would apply to all states.
27
posted on
07/31/2004 7:06:39 AM PDT
by
Bigh4u2
To: Bigh4u2
Another thing, say if Nader get 4% of the vote. Does he get .4 of an elector?
I doubt this will pass, especially with the popular Governor of Colorado against it, but I wouldn't take nothing for granted.
28
posted on
07/31/2004 7:10:17 AM PDT
by
Dane
(Trial lawyers are the tapeworms to wealth creating society)
To: Petronski
I think 1 elector voted for Liberman for president.
29
posted on
07/31/2004 7:12:44 AM PDT
by
tort_feasor
( anti-Semitism is not a lifestyle choice)
To: mwyounce
And all of that would be on the back of a faithless elector who refused to vote for Gore. This "heroic" elector hailed from the District of Columbia, Al Gore's home.
Otherwise, the election would have tipped to Gore 270-268. Talk about close.
The pre-convention electoral college race is Bush 274, Kerry 264. Split Colorado 6-3 (which I think is a little more like the real balance there than 5-4) and throw in one Kerry vote from Nebraska (I know, it's a stretch) and you've got...Bush 270, Kerry 268. How faithful are our electors?
30
posted on
07/31/2004 7:13:55 AM PDT
by
dufekin
(John F. Kerry. Irrational, improvident, backward, seditious.)
To: dufekin
Otherwise, the election would have tipped to Gore 270-268. Talk about close. Actually Nader got 5% of the vote in Colorado in 2000. He under this cockymaimie plan would have gotten .5 of an elector so Gore would have had 269.5 electors, not 270.
31
posted on
07/31/2004 7:17:14 AM PDT
by
Dane
(Trial lawyers are the tapeworms to wealth creating society)
To: Bigh4u2
Well, since Maine and Nebraska have an allocation system already, you may want to rethink your argument.
32
posted on
07/31/2004 7:19:14 AM PDT
by
sharktrager
(The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And the paving contractor lives in Chappaqua.)
To: Skywarner
Yes, if the Dems think this is such a great idea, I look forward to them implementing this initiative in New York and Massachusettes. Don't forget California!
To: fml
"We see this as a multi-partisan effort." Or, over 80% are from democrats. Idiot report is right!
Ah, I assume you've never been to journalism school. The '1st Rule' of political reporting is;
- Any Bill or Law that receives the backing of One Republican shall be reported as 'Bipartisan'. However if it's a republican sponsored Bill and/or Law and 49% of Democrats back it, said bill and/or law shall be reported as a 'Partisan' effort by Republicans to stifle opposition voices and is a direct threat to the democratic process.
~~semi sarcasm off~~
Wait..... that's the truth isn't it????
I'm sorry, carry on.
:-)
34
posted on
07/31/2004 7:19:38 AM PDT
by
Condor51
(May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. -- Gen G. Patton Jr)
To: Turbo Pig
The flaw in your reasoning is that Congressional districts are so intensely gerrymandered that the real fight for the Presidency would devolve upon the authorities in each of the respective states that determine Congressional district boundaries. Absent the redistricting effort of last year, Texas, for example, might deliver a majority of its electoral votes for Kerry rather than all to Bush.
Extremely few members of Congress face any serious challenger during any give election cycle, and granting each district an electoral vote only would increase the gerrymandering incentive and quite possibly the frequency of hyper-partisan redistricting battles. The number of Congressional districts in serious contention during any given Presidential election very well might be even fewer than the number of states now in contention.
The election, therefore, almost certainly would be an exercise in futility, its results essentially preordained by a partisan political machine.
35
posted on
07/31/2004 7:21:42 AM PDT
by
dufekin
(John F. Kerry. Irrational, improvident, backward, seditious.)
To: RonnG
They have a lock on both states, so they don't stand to benefit in any way.
To: Skywarner
Yes, but they won't be pushing to implement this initiative in any place but where it helps them... Just as Al Goreleoni only wanted ballots re-counted in favorable Florida districts.
37
posted on
07/31/2004 7:24:37 AM PDT
by
Libertina
(Photoshop is our friend - just ask John Bunny-Suit Kerry ;))
To: Dane
Sorry, but electors are discrete, as the Constitution requires them to be bona fide living, breathing human beings (although not in those words), so there's no way to split an elector. Exactly how one might convert the vote percentages into electors is a matter of some mathematical debate, much the same as the method of apportioning membership in the House of Representatives among the several States.
38
posted on
07/31/2004 7:27:41 AM PDT
by
dufekin
(John F. Kerry. Irrational, improvident, backward, seditious.)
To: dufekin
Sorry, but electors are discrete, as the Constitution requires them to be bona fide living, breathing human beings (although not in those words), so there's no way to split an elector I understand that but a good arguement in court would be since they are being divied proportionately any candidate who gets a vote should get a portion of the elector pie.
This proposal is a mess and should be argued as such.
39
posted on
07/31/2004 7:30:40 AM PDT
by
Dane
(Trial lawyers are the tapeworms to wealth creating society)
To: mondoman
Just like my seven year old daughter who wants to change the rules in the middle of the game if she's not winning!
This kind of crap will tear the US apart.
40
posted on
07/31/2004 7:31:30 AM PDT
by
EEDUDE
(Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-96 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson