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.
A D.C. delegate did not vote in protest last time so she would have been Gore's 270th vote in this situation.
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!
I agree and understand you 100%. Not a good website. I just plucked out two sentences which are true.
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....
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.
I doubt this will pass, especially with the popular Governor of Colorado against it, but I wouldn't take nothing for granted.
I think 1 elector voted for Liberman for president.
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.
Don't forget California!
Ah, I assume you've never been to journalism school. The '1st Rule' of political reporting is;
~~semi sarcasm off~~
Wait..... that's the truth isn't it????
I'm sorry, carry on.
:-)
They have a lock on both states, so they don't stand to benefit in any way.
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.
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.
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.
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.