Posted on 09/23/2004 7:31:26 PM PDT by TitansAFC
Colorado Democrats have amended their proposal to split the state's nine electoral votes proportionately among presidential candidates. Rather than just apply retroactively to the 2004 election and all future Presidential elections thereafter, the modified bill would apply the new system retroactively to the 2000 election. The new proposal could effectively overturn the results of the 2000 election by giving Al Gore the four additional Electoral Votes needed to win the presidency.
"If the voters speak correctly on November 2nd," claimed Colorado Democratic Chairman Jason B. Votefraud, "we can give Kerry four additional electoral votes from Colorado in 2004 and undo the stolen election of 2000 with one referendum!" Colorado Democrats have not yet decided what the strategy will be should the referendum pass as it pertains to what would be the new result of the 2000 election; but hopeful Bush-haters are already talking about an instant removal of Bush from the White House on November 3rd.
"If the referendum passes," stated Kerry supporter Frances Q. Maniac of Denver, "then Bush never won the 2000 election, which he didn't anyway, and we should immediately remove him from office and put swear in the rightful winner, Al Gore, until we can figure out what to do about the Kerry/Gore conflict. If Bush never won, then he's not the incumbent, and the Republicans should have to start the nominating process all over for perhaps a special election or something next year."
I'm getting too jaded to recognize these parodies until about halfway in . . . today I almost fell for the one about TerryKerry cussing out a Wendy's cook . . . they are just too close to the truth . . .
If all states did this, Preaidenta would be elected by large urban populations in a few states. The founders wanted the President to represent the United States as a total country, not just its urban population centers. They were protecting this nation against the worst excesses of democracy.
Democrats elect people that not only shouldn't hold public office, but should be institutionalized for their own safety.
ROFL... just saw that "parody".... I'm getting too cynical, didn't doubt this for a second ;-)
Isn't there something about no ex post facto laws in the Constitution?
LOL - good one. Maybe you should sign up as a speech writer for Terry McAuliff
Because it seriously means that a candidate can totally ignore a state and still get a portion of the electorate. A form of disinfranchisement.
Why don't you guys post these in the morning :^P
Unconstitutional at both state and federal "Ex Post Facto.
Doing this little piece will call the entire amendment into state and federal court and the court will place an injunction on the amendment taking effect until a ruling can be adjudicated. That ought to take to get through both courts until,.... oh say,... about ........Dec 2008.
All that would happen from such a move -- if such a thing were legal -- would be that four of Colorado's electors would instantly be branded faithless electors who voted for someone other than the person they were retroactively instructed to vote for (at a time four years into the future).
Not only would it be laughed out of every court, but it wouldn't make it onto any docket before Jan 21 when Bush takes office again.
Or do they think that every document Bush signed would suddenly cease to be law?
TS
Then CO will become the neglected step child next election. The EC was designed so big states didn't have to much advantage over the smaller ones. It will never see a presidential campaign visit. Why bother?
I hate to bother you, but could you put the word "Parody:" at the very front of the title of this thread. Too many people are taking this seriously!
Thank you very much!
This is a parody! :-)
This is fantastic news! If the decision is retroactive to 2000, that means that Bush has just fulfilled Gore's entire term (because Gore never showed up to work). That means that Bush can run for two more terms, because he never won in the first place.
Excellent!
I hadn't thought of that. That's brilliant!
Freepers in Colorado need to tell their friends to vote against the unconstitutional Amendment 36 that will be on the ballot. It would change the allocation of Electoral College votes from winner-take-all to propotional. The campaign is being funded by weathy interests in California. I wonder why they don't propose the same type of amendment to be passed by a state-wide referendum in California?
It is unconstitutional, because it is a referendum. The constitution very specifically says that the state legislatures, and only the state legislatures have the authority to determine the method by which electors are chosen! The Colorado legislature very specifically rejected such a system.
As long as large states like California, New York and Texas do not change from a winner take all system, it is not in the interest of small states like Colorado to do so.
I also don't want to forgot to mention that it also violates the federal election code. The method by which the electors is selected must be in place before (as I recall at least six days prior to) the date the electors are chosen which is election day. Even if the a referendum were a valid mechanism of determining the method of allocating electors, this referendum is too late to affect the 2004 election. This referendum should be fought in court and removed from the ballot.
Article II.Section 1 The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
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 parody part is that it's true.
IF I'm understanding this correctly, since electoral votes are determined by number of representatives plus two for each state, then each congressional district would have one vote, and each state would have two votes. Since the results would largely follow the congressional and state races, this would have the effect of largely mirroring the U.K.'s parliamentary system.
I replied too soon.
Why stop at 2000? In 1876 the Republican Hayes won by one electoral vote over the Democrat Tilden, 185-184. Colorado cast 3 electoral votes for Hayes. If they were to go back and split the vote 2-1 for Hayes (at least a third of the eligible voters must have been Democrats), that would make Tilden President. Of course we will have to revise the history books.
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.