Posted on 10/07/2004 6:08:07 PM PDT by neverdem
|
|
|
|
|
www.washingtontimes.com
Proportional split of electoral votes on Colorado ballotBy Valerie RichardsonTHE WASHINGTON TIMES Published October 7, 2004 DENVER -- The presidential candidate who wins a majority of the vote in Colorado next month could take all nine of the state's electoral votes, or he could take five.
|
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
this would destroy our election system and allow the north east US to basically take over the governement legally.... lets stop this or we all will be out of luck ...
if Bush wins Colorado, look for this amendment to fail.
That's what I think!
But it's on the ballot, and has evidently had good press.
Has big bucks behind it, too.
Why would a Republican State want this? The EC has served us well all these years.
Until the dems started losing.
Ohhhh, now I see...................the dems are losing.
That means that either it doesn't go into effect this election, or Colorado fails the "Safe Harbor" conditions, and the Congress is free to reject Colorados slate.
Amendment 36 is unconstitutional. Article II clearly states that it is up to the state legislature to decide how EV's are selected, not referenda.
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.
A proportional approach prevents the balance of power from tipping hard on the slimmest of margins. The debacle in Florida would never have happened with a proportional approach.
Hopefully, Bush will win by a large enough number that their electoral votes won't matter.
I read this in the article:
A statewide Ciruli Associates poll found 51 percent in favor of the measure and 37 percent against it. The rest were undecided.
Discover Magazine | Sept. 30, 2004 | Math Against Tyranny
It's a backdoor attempt to eliminate the Electoral College. The people of Colorado will reject this if they are sane, and the Supreme Court will reject it if they're not.
It's worse than that...it's being funded by a foreigner:
By Susan Greene
Denver Post Staff Writer
"The wealthy president of a Brazilian university is bankrolling an initiative to end Colorado's winner-take-all presidential electoral system.
J. Jorge Klor de Alva is the major donor to The People's Choice for President - a nonprofit group seeking voters' permission to award Colorado's Electoral College votes proportionally as a percentage of the statewide popular vote.
For example, a candidate who wins 60 percent at the polls could snag five of the state's nine electoral votes, leaving the remaining four to a candidate who wins 40 percent on Election Day.
The group has begun to collect signatures; it needs 67,799 to get the measure on the ballot."
I agree 100%. I went out to the Ma ke Your Vote Count website. They are apparently aware of potential constitutional problems with this. It is quite obvious this referndum is intended to encourage litigation to create a test case. Considering that the Colorado legislature rejected legislation that would have split its Electoral Vote proportionally, I think they along with the governor should refuse to enforce this amendement if it passes and force the proponents to sue.
Even if it wins, the measure is certain to be challenged in the courts due to questions about its constitutionality.Article II of the Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors."
The Colorado ballot measure is being voted on by the people directly, not by the state legislature. But Denver attorney Mark Grueskin, who drafted the measure, said there are Supreme Court precedents supporting the idea of the people being the ultimate authority in such electoral law cases.
Much of the funding of the effort to pass the ballot measure has come from Jorge Klor de Alva, a California resident and a business executive who heads a firm called Apollo International, which is linked to Apollo Group, parent company of the University of Phoenix.
The founder of the Apollo group is Dr. John Sperling, who has been a major Democratic donor, giving thousands of dollars to candidates from John Kerry to Howard Dean. Klor de Alva has contributed to the campaigns of two Democratic congressional candidates.
The nitwits who do Fox & Friends on the weekend had some proponent on this measure on last Saturday or Sunday to give the case in favor...none of them could think of any reason why anyone might object to it.
If this passes then the Repubs should try to amend the system in CA, NY, IL and other Demo leaning states.
In any case, to ensure Mr Bush as enough EV's I think on election night I will relax only when he has at least 275 votes. That way if this stupid amendment passes and 4 of CO's votes go to kerry then GWB will still be over the top.
The RATS aren't dumb enough to do that.
Thanks for the quote from Article II and the links.
<< neverdem
Coloradans will accept or reject the measure on Nov. 2, the same day as the presidential vote.
That means that either it doesn't go into effect this election, or Colorado fails the "Safe Harbor" conditions, and the Congress is free to reject Colorados slate. >>
Wrong.
It's written to take retroactive effect -- to apply this year!
This is another of the Socialist-Internationalists' hidden-out-in-the-open insidious attacks upon our beloved FRaternal Republic's Founding Law.
An ACLU-like parsing and misuse of law to subvert The Law.
What do you mean, "disenfranchises those on the losing side"? The purpose of voting is to determine the winner and the loser. Get the most votes, you Win....get the fewest votes, you Lose. We have a simple, logical and effective system of selecting our leaders. The purpose, as we all know, of the Electoral College is to balance the influence of power between the large and small states. In over 225 years....please tell me when it has not worked as intended???
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.