Wow -- Colorado to split Electoral College Votes ??

[Eloriel]

This could be good. They're talking about splitting their Electoral Votes in line with the popular vote. If this passes it will go inte effect immediately. Al Gore would have WON by 1 Electoral Vote in 2000 had this law been in effect.

All this from a Fox News piece I'm watching (only because CNN and MSNBC go "dark" for all practical purposes on Saturday afternoons).

THIS is a very GOOD idea for "reforming" the Electoral College, IMO. Think about this: it would put so many more states in play so there'd be fewer "fly over" states relative to the campaign -- certainly Colorado would get more attention starting immediately, I would think.

Colorado is currently split down the middle, according to polls, and Republicans are trying real hard to defeat this initiative.

Edited: because I just realized it's probably a BILL in the Lege, rather than a referendum.

[T Roosevelt]

1. I believe it is a referendum

on the Nov ballot - they're putting it to the voters.

[murielm99]

2. But if it passes, it is retroactive to this election.

Or, maybe I should say it takes effect right away. It takes effect in the 2004 election.

[librechik]

3. keeping my fingers crossed!

on the other hand, we use a lot of touchscreen voting machines, and the last election was close & took WEEKS to settle our Jeffco Rep ugh, Beauprez (R-Christian Hegemony) won the recount.

[Rose Siding]

4. Is it constitutional?

Sounds like it could be good, but I can imagine the apoplexy our own dear party will go through to contort a "states rights" argument in our favor.

[Renew Deal]

5. States decide how to allocate their votes.

That's why we don't need a plan for a postponed election. We already have the plan. The legislatures decide.

[unblock]

6. i don't think so. colorado's LEGISLATURE has to decide

a referendum won't do it unless the legislature explicitly volunteers to abide by it.

which i suppose is entirely possible, as they might decide not to buck a statewide majority vote.

but technically, i don't think a referendum is constitutionally valid.


as far as i know, colorado already considered, and rejected, a bill to do the same thing.

[janx]

7. It is in Colorado, since the legislature essentially gave the

referendum power to the people...but I'm fully expecting the Feds to weigh in on this one.

(I hope they leave us alone.) About one third of Colorado voters are "unaffiliateds" (independents). I was one before Dean came along. That's a very large chunk of the voting public. There are more Republicans than Dems, but many of the large independent group are sick and tired of the radical right wing and will no doubt vote Dem.

Colorado is NOT a Republican state, no matter how people try to spin the lines. It has become more "conservative" in the last ten or twelve years, but the independents are a huge factor. The self-labeled conservatives who live here are loud and wacky, but they are not as numerous as many people assume.

At least that's the way it appears from where I sit... ;-)

[goodwalt]

8. Think it passes muster

I think the measure is constitutional. There IS another state that already splits their electoral votes (sorry, I'm having a brain freeze on which one it is). If anything might be questionable it is the retro-activity of the measure. Still, I'm not sure I want to see their votes split. For my money, any state that the polls show as even are going to be Kerry victories on the basis of turn out.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

9. I'm thinking Maine and Nebraska but not 100 percent sure.

[janx]

10. Two states--Nebraska and Maine, though the electoral votes

aren't allocated in quite the same way that the Colorado referendum proposes.

[demwing]

41. Absolutely. Its "Constitutional Amendment 36"

Cant get much more constitutional than that :)

[beyurslf]

11. This is good for us in this state

for now, but CO is turning Blue and Kerry could win it. We would actually be losing EV's if Kerry wins the state.
And could you imagine what would happen if NY and CA did this? We would be a world of hurt.

[tedoll78]

12. Scary scenario I envision:

If the Colorado referendum passes while Kerry loses the state overall (thus giving 4EVs for Kerry), and if those 4EVs put Kerry past the magic 270EV mark, we will see a lawsuit from the GOP challenging the Colorado referendum's constitutionality.

The GOP will argue that the U.S. Constitution allows each state's legislature to decide how to allot its electoral votes. The Colorado referendum will have been put on the ballot by ballot initiative, and then passed by the voters themselves - not the Colorado state legislature. On the face of it, this would be called inconsistent with the US Constitution's directions.

The case would make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, the USSC would do Bush's bidding, Kerry's 4 Colorado electoral votes would be awarded to Bush, and Bush would eeek past the 270 line once again.

On the other hand, if Kerry wins Colorado overall while the referendum passes, and if Bush wins the election with those 4EVs from Colorado, you can bet that Kerry will make the above argument and lose before the USSC. Bush will keep his 4EVs and go on to another term. Whether or not it's a good legal argument is of no real issue; the USSC wading into this is the larger worry for me.

Be careful, Coloradoans.. I thank you profusely for your efforts.

[TexasBushwhacker]

13. I have mixed feelings about this

For one thing, I'm not sure I like the idea of individual states deciding to split the EV's proportionally, while other states are winner takes all. It seems like those that split their votes will get very little attention during a presidential campaign, unless they're a state that has a lot of EV's at stake. On the other hand, I'm in Texas with a huge number of EV's, but we can't even get yard signs down here because Bush winning is a given. Talk about being disenfranchised.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

25. It would be GREAT if they had this in TX. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

14. Excellent idea! We should do the same in Indiana!

Indiana's 9 Electoral votes will go to Bush in November, effectively disenfranchising voters that voted Democratic. A Colorado scheme in Indiana would split the vote along 6-3, or 5-4 for Bush.

[PurityOfEssence]

15. Maybe they're sensing it'll go blue

and they want to have it both ways.

[tedoll78]

16. If Colorado polls show the race even before Election Day..

I'd probably recommend that Democrats vote against it so that we'd get the full 9EVs. With the Gore states + New Hampshire + Colorado, we'd end-up with 273EVs.

With so many possible permutations/combinations of scenarios in this state, I'm beginning to watch it more closely.

[IndianaGreen]

18. Why do you support an undemocratic system like winner-take-all?

Fuck party affiliation! Democracy is more important than party labels! I am sick of principles being sacrificed on the altar of political expediency by both parties!

The GOP opposes the measure in Colorado, just as the Democrats would oppose a similar measure in California. The pox on both! Neither of them have faith in the American people's right to choose!

We should have abolished the Electoral College way back after the 2000 fiasco. Apportioning Electoral votes falls short from the more democratic popular vote, but it is a lot better than the undemocratic winner-take-all system that disenfranchised half of America four years ago.

Under Colorado's proportional scheme, Al Gore would be in the White House right now even if Florida had gone Bush's way!

[Dookus]

21. Sorry

you are not "disenfranchised" if your candidate doesn't win.

[IndianaGreen]

23. Yes, you are!

Indiana's 9 Electoral votes will go to Bush in November. Is that an accurate representation of the Indiana vote? HELL NO!

[Dookus]

26. nope

disenfranchise
1. To deprive of a privilege, an immunity, or a right of citizenship, especially the right to vote; disenfranchise

You voted. Your candidate lost. You weren't disenfranchised.

If an election for your local school board has one candidate winning 51% over 49% for his opponent, were 49% of the people disenfranchised? No. They voted. Their candidate lost.

[IndianaGreen]

29. Try this for size: Why should we bother to vote at all?

If our red state is going to go for Bush because of the winner-take-all, why should we bother to vote at all? There are many potential voters that have already decided that their votes don't count, so they don't even bother to go to the polls. They already feel disenfranchised!

[Dookus]

31. similarly

why vote for school board if the minority candidate doesn't get something?

You are simply misusing the word "disenfranchised". You get a chance to vote - there's no guarantee your candidate will win.

[buycitgo]

34. EXACTLY! that's why we should trade them the Arnold amendment

for the electoral college amendment

course, recounts would go on, then, til the next presidential election

we ALSO must go to paper ballots

[mzmolly]

17. I think this would be great in ALL states as well ...

I don't think the current system motivates voters to make it to the polls.

[Dookus]

24. actually

changing this in all states would probably make voters even LESS motivated to go.

For example, if Colorado is evenly split, people on both sides have a big motivation to vote to give their candidate all of Colorado's electoral votes. If they're split, say 5 - 4, it just doesn't matter much. Furthermore, this will guarantee that candidates won't care as much about Colorado.

[PermanentRevolution]

27. I disagree...

If this JUST passes in Colorado, it's going to make Colorado less important in elections, since a 50/50 split would only be a tossup of 1 EV. Insignificant to most candidates. But if this were enacted across the country, it would throw every state back into play. There would be no "safe" states, Red or Blue. Winning the Electoral College would actually have to be done in a state-to-state effort, with each one being important. Not a bad thing, necessarily.

[Dookus]

28. It would have the effect

of forcing candidates to campaign in large states. Now, as a large-stater myself, I'm not opposed to the idea, but a whole lot of small states would get left out of the mix.

[F.Gordon]

32. Did you say "LESS motivated"?

Yes, I hate my DU name...but that's what I was born with...

I completely disagree that this will make voters less motivated. The biggest problem we have in this country is low voter turnout. Part of the reason for this is that the media tells "us" who is winning before "we" even vote. I've wasted more time recently convincing Democrats that these polls are bullshit. The other reason for low voter turnout is the negative overload that voters get when their state is "in play". Voters get real turned off with politics during the election cycle...sick of the ads....sick of it all.

I think A36 is the greatest thing since the invention of the light bulb. Even if the "polls" show Kerry ahead on 11/1 in Colorado I'm still voting for it.

If you haven't already, you can read my argument(s) for A36 on our State Forum thread....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=142x1367

[southlandshari]

38. On the other hand...

in states like mine (Alabama) that have not been close to evenly split in recent presidential elections, there is a lot more motivation to get out and vote if there is a chance that your vote will actually help win even one electoral vote for your candidate.

[Doosh]

19. it *could* be good, but we have a legit shot at winning the state

common sense tells me it will swing to bush at the end.

[IndianaGreen]

22. Denver's liberal vote gets drowned by Fort Collins and Colorado Springs

I am opposed to all winner-take-all voting systems for they are inherently undemocratic and they disenfranchise voters. Barring a Constitutional Amendment, we could use the same proportional system in Indiana.

[JLucas4092]

37. "Denver's liberal vote gets drowned by Fort Collins and Colorado Springs"

and Greeley, and Grand Junction, and Pueblo.......this is a conservative state except for Boulder and Denver. The fact that Kerry even is in the running has me seriously excited.

[IndianaGreen]

42. Kerry trailing Bush by one point in a state that...

went for Bush by 8 points in 2000. Now, that's significant!

[Dookus]

20. This is a two-edged sword

do something like this in NY and California, and the Republicans stand to gain... a helluva lot more than 4 electoral votes.

There are two legal issues, one of which has been raised already. Can the legislature delegate it's authority to the referendum process, and by so doing, does that fulfill the constitutional requirement that the legislature do so? We'll see.

The second issue is federal election code (Title 3, Section 5), which requires that:

If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the

day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final

determination of any controversy or contest concerning the

appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by

judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination

shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for

the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to

such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior

to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and

shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in

the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the

ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.

*******************

This could mean that you can't change the system for appointing electors ON election day. You'd have to do so ahead of time, which this referendum doesn't do.

[Trashman]

30. It scares me a little,

Just how many votes could Bush win and we could lose from the big states like CA and NY alone, if they went along with this?

[F.Gordon]

35. This code relates to the "meeting of the electors"

Remember Florida? 2000? A36 does not change this. I have also yet to see a legal argument nulling A36 by any repuke types. They just cite the same stuff you and others on this thread have come with .... those that are against it.

As for NY and Calif? At this point we're only talking about Colorado. The "what if" comparisons that you and are others are using remind me of the pro-gun people who used the same "what if" argument against the Assault Weapon Ban.

[Dookus]

36. I never said I was against it

I'm just pointing out the potential consequences of this happening not just in Colorado, but in other states.

[F.Gordon]

43. Don't mind me.....

I didn't see your post stating that.:dunce:

My hope, if A36 passes, is that it will help upset the apple cart. I'm glad that Kerry has been coming to Colorado. At the very least he has been helping the people running for House and Senate seats, but he wouldn't even be doing a "fly-over" if Colorado wasn't "in play". That's wrong. Very wrong.

Why should any State be more important than another?

The EC system is broke and no one is willing to fix it. More people in this country felt Gore would be a better President in 2000, but that didn't matter. It came down to one state, and all the bullshit that went on there, over-riding the will of the people.

That's not a democracy no matter how you spin it.......

[MAlibdem]

33. Bad for Colorado...

It means they effectively have one (1) EV in contention. That means they will get FAR LESS attention than they do now, not more.

[demwing]

39. It's a bill

Constituional Amendment 36.

The conservatives are frothing at the mouth over it. Sounds like a good thing.

[usregimechange]

40. Such an idea would be bad in California. nt

[kentuck]

44. And New York...

Democrats would never win another election.

[F.Gordon]

45. "And Iowa......"

Using one state, that isn't Colorado, to argue against this goes to the very heart of the issue. Why should one state be more important than another? I'm fairly confident that if you applied this system nationwide the repukes would never win another election. But I don't have time to go back and do the math.... someone with more time on their hands might prove me wrong.

We need to throw the EC in the trash. If by passing A36 in Colorado we can start working towards this goal, then I see nothing wrong with that.