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.
No it wouldn't: "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"
There's nothing in the Constitution mandating "winner takes all". There's nothing in the Constitution mandating a direct popular vote. In Florida 2000, the way the Florida laws were set up, if there was no uncontested winner in the election by the federal electoral college deadline, the law mandated that the FL legislature pick a winner and be done with it.
Technically, it would be unconstitutional!
The dims want to cherry pick their states just like they tried to do with Florida counties for recount in 2000.
Wake up Colorado - torpedo this thing.
If God forbid this mess did pass, since it is a voter intiative and not a legislative bill by a legislature, would be a good arguement in court to strike this mess down.
And I'm not thinking this thing will pass, just thinking out of the box and about the Constitutional consequences.
One other risk of this is the greater potential of forcing ties in the general electrol count.
My guess is that most of the pubbies who signed the petition didn't understand it. The guy that tried to get my signature outside of the grocery store explained it as "making every vote count" (or something like that). Since I never sign anything I haven't researched, I told him I'd think about it.
Yes, I was aware of the difference, but it makes the situation worse instead of better. If they do this, they might never see a candidate again. Really, I think it is a trivial detail instead of a fundamental difference, but it is a difference, as you correctly point out.
Thats what sets us apart from them
However, no state has ever adopted proportional voting for any purpose. That is the voting method which hands a few seats to the most kooky political groups in Europe, Israel, etc. THAT is the reason this initiative should fail.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "The Wussification of America: Fallout from Arnold, John and Sandy"
If you haven't already joined the anti-CFR effort, please click here.
Y'all check out the RATs latest dirty trick to try and undermine our elections. They want to skew all elections in favor of the RAT infested urban cesspools.
Maybe because they already have those states tucked away in the "safe" column.
Any day from the sixth day prior to the electoral college meeting.
Also, in the case of Florida, the law required 20 days, plus an undefined period for judicial ruling in order to contest the certified results, prior to those six days, else the legislature would be free to ignore the courts.
States may not change the voting procedure.
Congress controls the deadline for states' selection of electors, and sets the date on which the electors are required to give their votes (it's not required that the Electoral College actually meet). That does not means that states cannot choose the means by which they select their own electors.
Only Congress can vote on a change, and that would apply to all states.
If a state wanted to appoint its legislature in some truly wacky fashion, it would be within their authority to do so. Any legislature that tried to do anything too bizare, however, would likely face unelection.
That would be a violation of federal law and the US Constitution. The method of allowcating a state's electoral vote can only be changed prior to the election. Second, the constitution very explicitly states that the state legislature and only the legislature may determine the method of allocating electoral votes. That was the basis of the ruling in Bush v Gore in 2000.
No it wouldn't: "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct
Like hell it isn't unconstitutional. A referendum is not the legislature!
I would like to see districts drawn by the following procedure:
This sort of thing is meant to only happen in Republican majority states. That would give the crats electoral votes in the Republican states without giving up any in the Crat states.
The most corrupt precincts could be effective at swinging a few hundred or thousand more votes.
This would be a nightmare and it would flush the 'clout' of larger states down the sewer.
Its hard to believe Colorado WANTS to have about as much clout
in presidential elections.....
as PUERTO RICO !!!
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.