colorado proportional vote question

[onenote]

I've heard that Colorado will vote on allocating electoral votes on a proportional basis (not winner take all) this year. I've also heard that if Colorado's electoral votes had been apportioned in 2000, Gore would've been declared President and the Florida re-count would've been irrelevant.

My question is -- what is the likely result in Colorado this time? If folks are counting on it ending up in the Kerry column, how bad will it be if its not winner take all? Put another way, when I see reports of various pollsters estimates of the electoral college results, how are they treating Colorado?

onenote

[Bill McBlueState]

1. it's not in effect yet

This'll be voted on in a referendum on November 2, I believe. And I don't think it's going to be retroactive to the 2004 presidential election.

But if it were, you raise a good point -- Kerry's coming on a lot stronger there than expected. At electoral-vote.com, it's a tie. Hasn't been updated since August 19, though.

[ProfessorPlum]

2. Every state should be proportional

Can you imagine what an effect that would have? Suddenly, everyone's vote, in every state, would actually matter.

It wouldn't matter if your state were "safe". Each and every vote would actually matter.

What a great dream . . .

[Bill McBlueState]

3. agreed

I hate it how, in Massachusetts, if you want to help Kerry on the ground, all the opportunities are in New Hampshire. Nothing against New Hampshire, but I don't know New Hampshire! I'm familiar with the people and politics of this state, and I don't like having to be shipped somewhere else to make a difference. Sure, it's good that Mass. is in our column, but it's a crappy feeling to have that your vote doesn't count so much.