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.
Exactly. Nebraska's system is not as crazy as this..it actually makes some sense and is decently fair and gives folks a say.
But this is just outrageous......this is Germany/French crap and I won't stand for it.
If we want to know what will happen to America if this becomes law, take a gander at the political culture of those countries.
This is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS!! Not a minor issue.....A HUGE THREAT TO OUR REPUBLIC!!!!!!!!!
I prefer the NEbraska system, not the Colorado one. Nebraska's is less radical.
I pray this fails in Colorado.....it is a horrendous proposal (and unconstitutional....only the legislature can make these changes).
This is wrong: Maine has gone 3-1 several times.
Maine went 4-0 in 2000, but it was very close. Maine often goes 3-1.
In ANY close election, given that a MAJORITY of a state prefers Candidate A,
the new system could easily hand the overall election instead to Candidate B.
Wouldn't the MAJORITY of that state's voters be ANGRY?
This would really open up a can of worms and battles across the landscape. Most Americans have no idea what is at stake....exactly what the lowlife rats are banking on.
As usual, depending on the stupidity of the average voter.
Someday we need to get all freepers to run for public office....think we could have some impact?
As posts 27 and 64 make clear, this would be both unconstitutional (sinc it is not a law enacted by the legislature) and in violation of the United States Code since the electors must be chosen prior to the election.
We need to e-mail the SOS to make sure they know this is not even a legal initiative to go on the ballot.
This should not be voted on!
sos.elections@sos.state.co.us
and that is exactly the plan - the safe Dem states remain winner take all, while the Dems in a few Republican states fool those citizens into making their system "fair" by dumping winner take all.
don't be so sure the Dems can't pull this off.
At that point, if they were to get it in just a few states (like Colorado) - the only way to then make the system fair would be elimination of the electoral college. Nebraska and Maine aside, we can't have a fair elections with all the solid Dem states going winner take all, while other states go with partial allocations.
in this country, that's as sure as death and taxes.
But they enacted those laws through their legislatures before the election. This referendum violates both federal law and the constitution. It would change the method of allocating the electoral college vote after the deadline specified in federal law. Read post #64. The US Constitution also states that only the state legislatures have the authority to change the method of selecting electors.
Thanks. I guess it gives something else for the Democrats to blame an electoral loss on if it's within 8 electoral votes. Think that's the strategy?
Dems in mid-Nov: "Conservative Judges once again stole an election from us."
More 'rat slick tricks.
It seems to me I remember this being "in discussion" mode when I lived in Colorado. Nobody in the Western Slope (western Colorado, i.e., rural conservative area) was in favor of this "great" idea. I'm sure it sprung from someone in the liberal areas, i.e., Bolder (a/k/a Berzerkley wannabees), Denver, Steamboat Springs.....
Bolder = Boulder, of course
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.