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.
well put!
I would think that if you couldn't win the votes under your old party name(democrat) then you could change to an independent in name and the uneducated masses like a herd of cows might still vote for you thinking they've found something new.
Period. They must be stopped.
States must have laws "ENACTED PRIOR" to that date, for the determination of those electors.
Coloradans would be VERY STUPID to choose to have less CLOUT than Wyoming.
But for the RATS to hope to pull a fast one ON or AFTER November 2nd would (at best for them) force the issue to be decided by the US congress, or US supreme court.
"If the Dems want to do something like this, have them do it in California, where we'd get a portion of the 54."
-- Exactly. California usually goes around 55-45 to the Demmies. I don't think they want to lose 20 votes.
If we really wanted to revamp the system, we would make it so every congressional district = 1 vote. Win the popular vote in a district, get 1 vote. Win the popular vote in the whole state, get 2 votes.
Of course the Dems wouldn't like that either: they don't control congress!
"I disagree with using a percentage of the popular vote to break out electoral votes. That method still gives the election power to population heavy areas, which will always be pro-government largess.
I do think that the electoral votes should be distributed via congressional district break out, though. 1 electoral vote goes to the winner of the popular vote in each house district, in a state. 2 electoral votes, representing the ones for the senatorial districts, are cast for the winner of the popular vote, state wide.
The system described makes it important to hit areas that have traditionally been ignored, while still giving weight to the larger states with more Congressional districts and population. I'm sure there is a flaw there somewhere, so go ahead and deconsrtuct, please."
-- I 100% agree!
One DC delegate abstained from voting.
A move to undo the electoral college.
Can a state UNDO the ellectoral system for just their state?
There was a DC delegate who didn't vote. It was a Gore delegate who protested. If Colorado rules were in place in 2000, Gore would have gotten 270 votes, 50.18%. If DC didn't vote, which they SHOULDN'T ANYWAY (They're not a state!), Gore would have lost.
This is an effort of democrats to anticipate a future where they are a minority if not third party.
Proportional representation is the only way democrats have to save their existence. Very french.
Maine and Nebraska already have it.
"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."
-- wouldn't that spur anti-gerrymandering legislation?
Most people who sign petitions don't understand them. I was approached by a young lady with three petitions near my supermarket - she had a good rap, but winced when I asked to see the proposals that the petitions were for.
Each was several pages and my training is as a lawyer, so some stuff stood out. The one about med malpractice had nesteled within it an explicit reference that the legislature won't limit med malpractice awards. I scoffed - this petition is part of the problem, I'm all for tort reform and I am explictly FOR limiting med mal awards. Another woman in earshot was listening and she nodded. Needless to say, the activist didn't get either of our signatures.
Clearly the activist did not want people to read or understand the text. She had a good rap, though, and no doubt she got many sigs.
PS - The best part was the look of genuine disgust she gave me when I laughed out loud and dismissed her petition to increase the minimum wage. That look said 'disgusting, male, REPUBLICAN!' I wished her well and sped away in my Saab 9-3. ;-)
I thought you can't change the rules of the game during an election year or prior to a certain amount of time before the federal elections of that year.
If the voters passed that initiatiative, look for it to be challenged on constitutional grounds...besides technically the electors could still vote the way they want to inspite of the election results.
This has the potential to get ugly!
You're right. By the text of the Constitution, any change to the way presidential electors are chosen MUST come from the state legislature
Nebraska and Maine supposedly have a system similar to that.
That sounds reasonable.
Not this Colorado straight PR system.
Folks..if we go go PR, this will change the very nature of our political system for the worse. PR systems like Germany's create enormous divisions with huge numbers of political parties.
That is not a good thing.
This is very disturbing.
I pray it fails to pass.
Any polls on the matter?
The legislature may direct......not the voters.
Any chance in this passing?
Will the GOP challenge it based on the fact that well.....the Constitution mandates changes in the electoral system come from legislatures, not citizens in initiatives?
This is very dangerous.
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.