PARODY: Colorado to Vote on Bill that Splits its Nine EVs; Would Make Law Retroactive to 2000 Electi

Parody | 9-23-04 | TitansAFC

[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."

[Paleo Conservative]

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.

Ever wonder why Colorado was admitted as a state in 1876?

[Verginius Rufus]

I remember reading that Colorado was admitted in 1876 so that they could cast their electoral votes. The House had a Democrat majority, the Senate a Republican majority. I think it was the Democrats who pushed it through but it backfired on them. The legislature cast the electoral votes.

I think the admission of Nevada in 1864 was also because the Republicans thought they might need its electoral votes in the election.

[swilhelm73]

You should tag humor articles with a (humor) or (satire) or some such after the title.

Yes, I know its topic is listed as humor and you even wrote parody for the source...but I don't know how many people I had taking all my Broken Newz articles seriously before I started adding to the title. ;)

[smoothsailing]

I like your thinking.

George Bush is inaugarated for first term in January and then Senator Shrew has to face Bush the incumbent in 08.

The Supreme Court rules on Nov. 3 that since Bush has been elected to the Presidency he might as well stay where he is since a transition during war would be a risky scheme.

Gore and Kerry are carried away in straight jackets.

Lieberman sits in the Senate and laughs his A.. off every time Edwards opens his mouth.

[Artemis Webb]

Like several others here I saw the word "parody" only after reading the whole piece. It sounds so much like something the left would try it. One has to believe that somewhere liberals are thinking this would be a great idea.

[iwhiskey]

The 2000 retroactive is bogus. the amendment is set up to be effective for the 2004 election. you can review
the text at:

http://www.lawanddemocracy.org/pdffiles/COamend36.pdf

[Paleo Conservative]

I think the admission of Nevada in 1864 was also because the Republicans thought they might need its electoral votes in the election.

It was during the Civil War, and it was known that most of the states still in the Confederacy would not send electoral votes results or Congressmen and Senators to Washington. There were fears that who ever got a plurality of electoral votes would not have a majority of all the total electoral votes (including those of the Confederate States) Also it was feared that there would not be the quorum necessary in case the election were thrown to the House and Vice-Presidential election to the Senate.

[A.J.Armitage]

No, if all states did this the cities would matter less.

[SoCar]

Like several others here I saw the word "parody" only after reading the whole piece. It sounds so much like something the left would try it. One has to believe that somewhere liberals are thinking this would be a great idea.

I fell for it at first too. Just too close to RAT typical behavior.

I am interested in knowing how the actual issue of electoral vote splitting this year is doing in the polls? Are there ads running and what are they like? It gets me nervous that uninformed "swing" voters may like the idea since it does make some sense on a surface level to those that may not know better. Any info from CO out there?

[HardStarboard]

>>> That means that Bush can run for two more terms, because he never won in the first place. <<<

Bingo! I would love to see the faces of the Colo Democrats when they learn of this "twist of fate! Beautiful to behold!

[Paleo Conservative]

I fell for it at first too. Just too close to RAT typical behavior.

Fake but accurate.

[Artemis Webb]

I'm not in Colorado but I have heard that there is actually some opposition from both Republicans and Democrats on this. The reason being that with 9 electoral votes and a split of them, and assuming each candidate in any election would take 3 of the votes that only leaves 3 electoral votes in play.

Opponents of the measure feel like candidates will simply ignore the state feeling like 2 or 3 electoral votes is not worth fighting for.

[SoCar]

All that you said is true as far as what this would mean for the state. I can't see that many RATS would oppose this though because it takes a currently mostly solid Republican state and removes the "all or nothing" and gives them something. Since RATS never seem to focus on the here and now with little regard for future consequences (like judicial filibusters), I'd be surprised if many were against this.

Of course I hope you are correct.

[Paleo Conservative]

I'm not in Colorado but I have heard that there is actually some opposition from both Republicans and Democrats on this. The reason being that with 9 electoral votes and a split of them, and assuming each candidate in any election would take 3 of the votes that only leaves 3 electoral votes in play.

In order not to split 5-4, it would be necessary for a candidate to get 67%+ of the vote. How likely is that? In reality, only one electoral vote would be in play.

[Artemis Webb]

Thank you.

[Rockpile]

Didn't Jason Votefraud and Frances Maniac make speeches at the Boston Convention?

[Colorado Doug]

Ex Post Facto

But it's a living document.

Sadly, there are too many judges that would not have a problem with this.