|
Popular Vote in Colorado
|
View this Thread in Original format
| .montecarlo. |
This seems to make so much sense, after all, what is more democratic than a... popular vote! I wonder if other states will follow suit. Seeing as W is ahead in this state, I'll anticipate opposition from the right and support from the left, but besides that issue, what are your thoughts?
| quote: | http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6106804/
DENVER, Colo. - Colorado will be the focal point on Election Day for one of the most intriguing proposed changes in American presidential politics since women were given the right to vote.
Facing Colorado voters on Nov. 2: a ballot measure to change the state constitution so that Colorado’s nine electoral votes would be allocated in proportion to the popular vote in the state instead of a winner-take-all basis. Colorado and 47 other states now use the winner-take-all method in presidential elections.
If approved by voters, Colorado’s measure could begin a state-by-state change in the electoral vote system, without proponents having to go to the trouble of attempting to amend the U.S. Constitution.
If George Bush got 52 percent of the popular vote in Colorado on Nov. 2, he’d be allocated five electoral votes instead of all nine.
If Democratic candidate John Kerry got 47 percent of the Colorado vote, he’d get four electoral votes, instead of none.
Were it to be approved by the voters and upheld by the courts, the ballot measure could boost Kerry, currently trailing in the latest Colorado poll at 39 percent.
But it could also conceivably cost Kerry the election, if he were locked in a close race and got only five of the state’s electoral votes.
Sue Casey, the state director for the Kerry campaign in Colorado, voiced exasperation with the measure: “I think it’s an esoteric, insider thing.”
She added, “I’m hoping that we win in Colorado and get nine electoral votes. There is no way you want to go all out and win a state — and then find out that you didn’t win the state.”
Colorado’s Republican Gov. Bill Owens is also critical of the measure and will be mobilizing opposition to it. Owens said the measure would make Colorado insignificant by diminishing the incentive for presidential candidates to pay attention to the state.
“For Colorado, for the next 100 years we wouldn’t have the ability to compete for the federal dollars, for highways, for base closings,” he said.
Helping lead the charge for the measure, called Amendment 36, is Democratic consultant Rick Ridder, a veteran of the Howard Dean campaign.
Julie Brown, the campaign director of Make Your Vote Count, the Denver-based group pushing the measure, said the idea began in 2001, when a Democratic state legislator from Boulder, Ron Tupa, proposed a bill to allocate Colorado’s electoral votes as Maine and Nebraska do: the popular vote winner would get two electoral votes and the winner of the rest of the state’s electoral votes would be determined by who carried each congressional district.
Tupa’s bill died in the legislature, so activists turned to the idea of a ballot measure.
'Fairest possible way'
“The statewide popular vote is the fairest possible way to do it,” said Brown. “What this is really about is making everybody’s vote in the state count equally. When you send nine people to the Electoral College and at least four of them don’t represent the state, it’s not fair, it’s not democratic.”
She added, “Contrary to popular belief, this is a non-partisan issue. We have had nothing to do with the Democratic Party on this.” She also said, “We have had no discussions with the Kerry campaign.”
Denver pollster Floyd Ciruli found in a Sept. 14-Sept. 18 survey of 600 likely voters that 51 percent supported the proposal, while 31 percent opposed it and 18 percent were undecided.
“In my opinion, that means it’s in trouble,” Ciruli said. Why? “For the most part, at this point there is very little advertising up for these amendments yet. Early voting starts here about Oct. 10. That’s when the big ads start. If you look at every other ballot issue in the polls, they are at 60 percent support or better.”
Leading the opposition to the measure is veteran Republican consultant Katy Atkinson, who has run initiative efforts in the past, including one to defeat Election Day voter registration.
Atkinson agreed with Ciruli that based on past ballot measure history the proposal looks unlikely to be approved.
Assessing poll results
“The rule in initiative campaigns is that if they come in on the first poll with under 55 or 60 percent on the proponents’ side, they’re in big trouble. The first poll gives the voters their initial impression, before they’ve heard any arguments against it; that’s normally the peak. It’s very difficult to build support while the other side is shooting at you,” she said.
“It looks so grossly partisan; it is sponsored by a Democratic operation with one of the big Democratic consultants in town (Ridder) with out-of-state money,” Ciruli said. “The Republicans will be overwhelmingly against it.”
Even if it wins, the measure is certain to be challenged in the courts due to questions about its constitutionality.
Article II of the Constitution says “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.”
The Colorado ballot measure is being voted on by the people directly, not by the state legislature. But Denver attorney Mark Grueskin, who drafted the measure, said there are Supreme Court precedents supporting the idea of the people being the ultimate authority in such electoral law cases.
Much of the funding of the effort to pass the ballot measure has come from Jorge Klor de Alva, a California resident and a business executive who heads a firm called Apollo International, which is linked to Apollo Group, parent company of the University of Phoenix.
The founder of the Apollo group is Dr. John Sperling, who has been a major Democratic donor, giving thousands of dollars to candidates from John Kerry to Howard Dean.
Klor de Alva has contributed to the campaigns of two Democratic congressional candidates.
A national harbinger?
Given some Americans’ puzzlement with the electoral mechanics that allow one candidate to receive the most votes nationwide and not win the electoral vote, one might expect that Colorado could be the harbinger of a national movement if the measure is approved by the voters.
But Atkinson is skeptical: She said only 16 states allow ballot initiatives and state legislators in the other states would not be likely to undertake electoral vote-splitting on their own.
If what the proponents were most concerned about was starting a national trend, Atkinson said, “They could have made this take effect in 2008, instead of in this presidential election. Or they could also have put a trigger in that said it took effect in Colorado after a certain number of the states adopted. Colorado would have been on the leading edge, but would not put itself at a huge disadvantage.”
But Brown said what other states do will not affect her support for Colorado proposal. “If you told me that no other state was going to do this and Colorado was going to be the only state to do this, I would still be working just as hard to pass it.”
© 2004 MSNBC Interactive |
|
|
|
| biznology |
interesting, as i live and vote in CO!
dunno what to make of it, certainly in the earliest of stages it doesnt benefit my state much, yet if it meant change overall it could lead to big things| |
|
|
| imokruok |
Figure that with 9 electoral votes, no candidate will ever get a percentage that gets them more than 5 electoral votes. So, in essence, Colorado is making itself a 5 electoral vote state. That puts the state on par with New Mexico. What Gov. Owens said about "declining influence" is absolutely correct.
Plus, there will be a $hitstorm in the courts, since there are some serious constitutional issues about putting the measure to a popular vote. |
|
|
| biznology |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
Figure that with 9 electoral votes, no candidate will ever get a percentage that gets them more than 5 electoral votes. So, in essence, Colorado is making itself a 5 electoral vote state. That puts the state on par with New Mexico. What Gov. Owens said about "declining influence" is absolutely correct.
Plus, there will be a $hitstorm in the courts, since there are some serious constitutional issues about putting the measure to a popular vote. |
well your first point is what i was getting at, not a short term goal in the least.
if all or most states did this tho, the result would make the college more in line with popular decision...BUT...
well you know the gist| |
|
|
| .montecarlo. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
What are the arguments against it?
|
from the article:
| quote: | | Colorado’s Republican Gov. Bill Owens is also critical of the measure and will be mobilizing opposition to it. Owens said the measure would make Colorado insignificant by diminishing the incentive for presidential candidates to pay attention to the state. |
although this doesn't really make sense to me... wouldn't politicians just have to work harder to win electoral votes in that state, thereby increasing the attention it receives? |
|
|
| imokruok |
| quote: | Originally posted by .montecarlo.
although this doesn't really make sense to me... wouldn't politicians just have to work harder to win electoral votes in that state, thereby increasing the attention it receives? |
You're assuming candidates have that kind of time. It is unlikely that a Presidential election will get past about 60%-40%, particularly in Colorado, so no candidate is going to waste their time fighting for 5 electoral votes when they can spend the same time elsewhere and get 10 or 20.
Actually, now that I think about it, it's like campaiging for 1 electoral vote! Because even if you don't campaign at all, you're still a major party candidate and will poll about 40%. So you get 4 votes for not showing up. |
|
|
| .montecarlo. |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
You're assuming candidates have that kind of time. It is unlikely that a Presidential election will get past about 60%-40%, particularly in Colorado, so no candidate is going to waste their time campaigning for 5 electoral votes when they can spend the same time elsewhere and get 10 or 20. |
good point, however, if it were adopted in all states that problem would cease to exist... |
|
|
| imokruok |
| quote: | Originally posted by .montecarlo.
good point, however, if it were adopted in all states that problem would cease to exist... |
Which might be theoretically nice, but it will never happen. Some states have constitutional prohibitions against it. Also, if a bunch of states pass this measure on their own, a bunch of states won't, because the states that don't change will have increasing influence. |
|
|
| .montecarlo. |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
Some states have constitutional prohibitions against it. |
That's interesting... why?
| quote: | | Also, if a bunch of states pass this measure on their own, a bunch of states won't, because the states that don't change will have increasing influence. |
The increased influence would have to be balanced against getting a more proportional representation in government. I guess it comes down to which is more important to the people.
Is the electoral system necessarily a state-level issue? Because it seems to inevitably lead to beggar-thy-neighbor policies. All that's needed is some coordination for the benefit of all. |
|
|
| imokruok |
| quote: | Originally posted by .montecarlo.
The increased influence would have to be balanced against getting a more proportional representation in government.
Is the electoral system necessarily a state-level issue? |
We're talking core constitutional issues here. Elections are the province of the states - even elections for federal officials (Congressmen, Senators), and the only nationwide federal election (President).
The system can all be traced back to the bargains of over 200 years ago, in which rural populations were increasingly worried about the influence and power of cities, and smaller states were worried about the influence and power of larger states. Smaller states joined the union of states only after some carefully debated compromises.
We have the electoral college for a reason. If it wasn't there, a Presidential candidate would never worry about the concerns of the people living in the "middle" of the country.
You can call it undemocratic, but this country isn't a democracy, and it wasn't founded as one. The founders understood the power of direct popular pressures. Hell, 100 years ago, we didn't even vote for Senators. The electoral college is one element of the Republic, and even if Colorado passes the amendment, I don't think it will get much farther than that.
Short of a constitutional amendment, there is no way to make the issue a federal one. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
We have the electoral college for a reason. If it wasn't there, a Presidential candidate would never worry about the concerns of the people living in the "middle" of the country.
|
And yet, in its current state, Presidential elections seem to ignore the majority of states in favor of what few "swing" states decide a close election. Therefore that's hardly a legitimate defense of the electoral college. Now while I am somwhat for the electoral college, I do believe states should follow Colorado example to decide electoral votes proportionally. |
|
|
| biznology |
| occ youre being socialist, we live in a FREE republic [sic] |
|
|
|
|
