http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6106804/

i just heard about this yesterday. In addition to voting for president in November, colorado is voting for a measure to allow a 5-4 split in its electoral college if it's a close race. This could spell disaster for bush if the election stays as close as it is. Polls show support for this measure, but i am rather curious how they'll be able to make the amendment active for the same election in which the measure was passed.

Any thoughts?

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6106804/ i just heard about this yesterday. In addition to voting for president in November, colorado is voting for a measure to allow a 5-4 split in its electoral college if it's a close race. This could spell disaster for bush if the election stays as close as it is. Polls show support for this measure, but i am rather curious how they'll be able to make the amendment active for the same election in which the measure was passed. Any thoughts?

I think it's the state's right to make this determination. I don't have a problem with widespread adoption of a change like this, but if you have a special case where only 1 out of 50 voting states has a different policy on how electoral votes are cast, it would seem a bit inconsistent, and as such, probably not in the best interest of a fair election, IMHO.

maine and nebraska use the split-vote style system. its up to the state law to determine it.

but maine and nebraska have never split votes in an election. they have a design to where the winner takes 2 votes and the rest are determined by votes in congressional districts. I've read more into the issue, and the initiative is funded by a californian and accused liberal. The mere fact that the electoral system can be disrupted with a ad compaign further convinces me of the antiquity of this system. Of course i'll celebrate this system if bush wins the popular vote and loses the electoral vote on this election.