Likely GOOD NEWS POLL: Colorado voters want to split electoral votes

[jefferson_dem]

A proposal to change how Colorado allocates its presidential electoral votes is winning by double digits, according to a Rocky Mountain News/News4 poll - but a majority of voters don't feel strongly either way.

Amendment 36 would scrap the traditional "winner take all" system and award Colorado's electoral votes proportionally, based on popular vote. It would be the first such system in the nation, and it would apply immediately to the November presidential vote.

Poll respondents favor it, 47 percent for to 35 percent opposed.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/election/article/0,1299,DRMN_36_3200422,00.html

[speedoo]

1. So this would take effect in this year's election... right?

That would be great news... more than offests the possible loss of some of Maine's EV's.

[jefferson_dem]

4. Yup. It will apply to this election. Odd things can happen.

Note how the Dem party is really pushing the proportional split of electoral votes. Not only is that more "democratic" but it will likely be of practical benefit of the party's nominee this round. ...Unless of course he wins the state... Then we want them all!!

[UnapologeticLiberal]

2. Why is Kerry downscaling his operation in Colorado?

Some polls have shown him ahead or within the margin of error...the polls were surprising, given that Colorado is expected to come over eventually but not in this election. Despite the polls, does the campaign not believe it can win the state outright, so they are just hoping for the electoral vote splitting measure to pass?

[janx]

3. Downscaling?

He was here last Friday.

[WI_DEM]

5. well it's good news if dems lose Colorado

but bad news if we win and three polls last week put the race in Colorado at 1-point. If Kerry wins Colorado I would want all them 10 electoral votes.

[Guaranteed]

6. It's a net plus for us, no matter what, if this passes.

We want it to pass. We could use those 4 or 5 EVs.

[demwing]

7. What it means is that IF this passes

And stands the test of appeals, then Kerry could pull out of Colorado now and concentrate his resources elsewhere, and still be virtually GUARANTEED about 4 EC votes from the state.

[uncle ray]

8. and ic could also mean

that colorado could be the next florida, even if it is just a few electoral votes. if this passes, it could mean this being debated for quite some time, they'll find a way to take it to the supreme court and override what the people want.

i agree with going with the popular vote, but ALL states have to switch to make it work effectively.

[lanparty]

11. ALL states would be best ...

... but I'd seriously doubt you'll see a federal amendment on this. We'll have to leave it up to states individually.

If this gets popular, the pukes will probably start pushing for proportional by congressional district like Maine. This will effectively harness all their gerrymandered districts.

The FAIR way to do it is to give the winner their percentage and round up for error. You would do in kind for each successive vote winner.

Under this system it would finally be feasible for 3rd parties to receive electoral votes. And that could bring with it a whole new dimension since a 3rd party candidate COULD broker a close presidential election among Democrats and Republicans by re-casting his electoral votes to the party that makes the best "deal" with him ;-)

[paulk]

17. if all states went with Colorado's proposed proportional distribution

here's what would happen:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=822000&mesg_id=822217&page=



It would give rural states a disproportionate say in our elections.

[tedoll78]

10. That's the big question mark:

If it stands the test of appeals.

If Kerry loses Colorado but makes it over 270EVs with the four electoral votes he'd get from this referendum, the GOP would be in court in a second claming that the referendum is unConstitutional.

And likewise, if Kerry were to lose the Electoral College by 3 or 4 electoral votes while winning only 5EVs from Colorado because of this referendum, you can bet that he'd be in court arguing that the referendum is unConstitutional.

It doesn't really matter.. what the argument used would be. If a court case were to settle the election again, it would end-up before the US Supreme Court, and we'd be screwed.

I like the principle behind the referendum, but I am also very wary of how it could play-out..

[lanparty]

12. States rights????

Yet again we'd see the Federalist society undermine it's own stated principles. These people are such intellectual hypocrites!!!!!

[tedoll78]

13. You're right.

Gore's case in 2000 was looking pretty good, but the USSC didn't particularly care.

If Kerry continues to run tied/ahead in Colorado for another month, I really hope that it's defeated. I know many will flame me for propping-up an allegedly "undemocratic system".. oh well.

[jefferson_dem]

14. I don't see how there could possibly be a constitutional violation.

The states are charged (IN THE ARTICLE II) with deciding on a procedure of awarding electoral votes and administering the election in accordance.

But then again...who would've thought those tyrants in black robes were going to interject their nasty selves into the 2000 election process. I guess all bets are off as to what lengths these slime will go to seize power.l

[lanparty]

16. Lets call them ...

... the Iranian five from now on. That should put things in their proper perspective.

Same concept, different religion.

[tedoll78]

18. Umm..

Article II, Clause 2: 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.

The GOP could make an argument made that because the electoral appointment law is passed via the people - and not the Legislature - it doesn't mesh with Article II. And whether or not that argument is valid really doesn't matter; the GOP will twist the Constitution's meaning, the media will help them, and the USSC will wink and nod at this argument.

[jefferson_dem]

19. Yes, you are right. We must keep in mind their "power at any cost"

philosophy. Surely, if the CO legislature delegates such responsibility to the people themselves through referenda / amendment, ... Anyway, we'll see...

[lanparty]

9. Wooohhooo!!!!

Thats the system I'd like to see. It's the "winner rounds up" system.

In non battleground states, this will get candidates to step foot there more often.

There is little incentive for candidates to go to Mississippi, Virginia and New York. It's pretty obvious who is going to win. They spend virtually ALL their times in states with high electoral vote counts and close races.

Moving to proportional voting will allow minority parties to chisel away at vote totals and FORCE presidential candidates to spend time there in order to avoid losing 50 votes across 50 different states.

I'm sure the national parties HATE this idea. It disrupts all their electoral and polling models. Count on the national repukes to dump a LOT of money in Colorado to squash this especially since Colorado votes for Republicans in presidential races.

[lanparty]

15. 2 constitutional pitfalls ...

The first is the one mentioned. That the electors are appointed in a manner that the states legislature shall determine. But in this case, the legislature of Colorado has deferred it's amendment rights to the citizens.

In effect, the legislature says, "we endorse whatever the citizens say". It is a de-facto legislative action because the legislature approved and endorsed it.

The BIGGER pitfall I see is that it voting for the measure takes place on the same day as voting for the president. I think Republicans will make the claim that the law for the election cannot be changed on the DAY of the election.

I am not a law scholar so I cannot cite any precedence. But the Pukes made the similar claims in 2000 when the State Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount to satisfy Republican requests for "equal protection" (even though the law was clear about WHEN they could ask for a recount).

Back to the first argument. If the court strikes down a Colorado amendment because it was not taken by the legislature, they could be indirectly striking down countless ballot initiatives across the nation. Ballot initiatives work legally because it presumes that such initiatives are de-facto legislative action. Striking down a Colorado Elector amendment on grounds that it isn't the "manner prescribed by the legislature" essentially says that ballot amendments ARE NOT legislative actions. Therefore, all ballot amendments would become null and void on challenge.