Proposed Colorado Law: Split Electoral College by popular vote:

[Endangered Specie]

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/election/article/0,1299,DRMN_36_3077685,00.html

Basically:
If the law passes (via statewide vote) Colorado which is for Bush would, instead of going 9-0 would go 5-4 or 6-3.
Had this happened in the 2000 vote, Gore would have won.

This is some VERY good news people, and those of us who live in Red States ought to see if we can do the same thing, especially those with Democratic Majority Legislatures.

[enki23]

1. i can't imagine them passing it

unless, that is, they want to make sure no presidential candidate ever bothers to campaign in their state again.

we'd have to get all the states to do it at the same time, for this to ever have a real chance in hell of working. and of course, there is no chance in hell of that happening anytime soon.

[Endangered Specie]

4. 20% of the signatures were republican...

So all hope is not lost. And maybe, if this news spreads, other people will try it in other states.

Just discussing it on a national level is a start.

[Ivan Zero]

2. Not a bad idea

I think Maine and Nebraska already do something similar to this. Anything we can do to get rid of the "winner take all" system will be a positive.

[Endangered Specie]

3. Theirs is not entirely proportional:

it works that a candidate gets 1 ev per district and the overall winner gets an additional 2.

[prodigal_green]

5. sounds like one for each house member and the senate evs

are a bonus.

The electoral college is patently unrepresentative. Western states with populations only big enough for one House rep still get three votes.

[Endangered Specie]

10. Yeah, Buffalo in Wyoming get more vote than I do in NC.

[pinto]

6. interesting "incremental" proposal for change in the Electoral College.

[JohnLocke]

9. Ditto.

[mellowinman]

7. I think this is a terrible idea

and I won't get behind it.

Luckily for everyone involved, I don't live in Colorado.

But think about it; if we win with a law like this put into effect at the last minute, we will be taking unimageinable shots. It will make the Great Clinton Cock Hunt look like a Partridge Family reunion.

If you can figure out what that means, you're good.

But you get the idea.

If this is done, it needs to be done in a year that ISN'T a national election year, and it should be applied uniformly across the states.

Otherwise it just looks like Dem cheating to the foaming at the mouthers.

And I almost NEVER care what those braindead fucksticks think.

But in this case?

I dunno...

[Endangered Specie]

12. A) Fuck what they think B) 20% of the signature were Reps.

C) In order to pass it will need Repo votes.

[salib]

13. must be the humorous side, huh?

[yardwork]

16. I don't think that they are talking about doing it now

These things take tiiiiiime.

No way could this get done in time for this year's election. Or maybe I'm just biased because I live in NC where redistricting from the 2000 census is still being debated.

[Pepperbelly]

8. don't some states award electors by congressional district? nt

[Endangered Specie]

11. Only Nebraska and Maine (but those rarely split), everyone else is

winner take all.

[buycitgo]

14. you're saying those two states split the E vote?

you SURE about that?

[Zidane]

20. He is correct

2 or 3 states have laws that split the electoral vote.

[Raiden]

15. Good Idea... But

it would only work if it is applied nationally. Imagine if California or New York implement laws like this before it is applied nationally. Democrats would be FUCKED!

[scottxyz]

17. Get rid of the Electoral College

I am so sick of it.

"One person, one vote" is supposed to be our motto.

Not "One square mile, one vote".

If we truly had "one person, one vote" in this country, I bet a lot more people in NY and CA would be inspired to vote. (Currently, they have little incentive to, as any votes over 51% aren't counted in the national total.)

[LiberalTechie1337]

18. "any votes over 51% aren't counted in the national total"

are you sure about that? i would appreciate it if you could verify that with a source.

[Big Al from WI]

19. What he meant was...

Any votes over 51% for each state are meaningless. It doesn't matter if Kerry wins New York by 1 vote or 100,000 votes, it still counts the same. It doesn't matter if Bush wins Texas by 1 vote or 100,000 votes, it still counts the same.

[Zidane]

21. Nor are any under 49%

Think about all the votes that don't mean a damn thing in the solid red states. We might as well just toss our ballots directly in the trash - they won't mean anything at all either way.

If we had a national popular vote those ballots would actually count.