Wampum

I've also been following this over at Luis', and my take is that, as Colorado's demographics shift to majority minority (Latinos, African and Asian Americans and Indians) whites are attempting to maintain electoral relevence, carving out their own little political apartheit spheres. Just this year, the 50% demographic threshold was crossed - of course, as many non-white residents are not yet citizens, it won't mean the immediate end to white electoral dominance. But in a few years, things will definitely change. What's sad, however, is the apparent abandonment by white Republicans of the non-white vote - they're assuming that vote will be Democratic, and so are proactively "protecting" their interests. So much for Bush and the GOP reaching out to Latinos.

Funny. My mom in Monterey California talked about how unfair winner-take-all is, and her preference for proportional ...

But with proportional there are no "swing states", there are no local issues that when "swung" deliver blocks of electoral votes, only polling data transformed (withing a MoE) into votes actually cast, the popular vote, transformed into electoral votes.

It (proportional) sure would zero-out the signifigance of 3rd parties.

You wrote,

"It is very unfair to have an election in which the candidates are not informed of the rules until after the votes are cast. The Bush and Kerry campaigns must decide on allocation of resources for the campaigns. Are they competing for 9 electoral votes in Colorado or are they both going to get about half and are fighting for one or maybe two electoral votes? If I were scheduling one of the candidates or allocating the advertising budget for one of the candidates, I would sure like to know the answer to that question before the polls close on election day."

I don't share your concern for the campaigners. Elections are for the electorate and the question of what is fair to the voters should be paramount.

Of course, I agree that if I were involved with a campaign, I would like to know these matters in advance. But campaigners face many uncertainties--it comes with the territory.

I have to agree with Handy. In fact, the campaigns do know "the rules of the game" in advance - in this case, the rule of the game is that there are one of two possible ways that the Colorado e.c. votes will be distributed, and the campaigns have to account for that. You haven't shown that this will lead to chicanry.

I wish you had addressed Talk Left's "it's like my vote didn't count" argument, which is one that seems pretty convincing to me.

You're right to say that there is a potential problem if this becomes a trend. If ONLY democratic-leaning states (or, alternatively, if only republican-leaning states) enact this sort of law, the result will be an unacceptable electorial advantage to one party. However, I think it's unlikely that a state like California (or Texas) would pass such a law, since the large majority of voters in those states would not want to help out the party they oppose. It's only in states where the vote is fairly evenly divided that this sort of law is likely to pass, imo.

Nebraska and Maine don't have a winner take all presidential election system. Of course they can do it

Actually Maine does have winner-take-all -- for the single EV allocated to the 1st CD, for the single EV allocated to the 2nd CD, and two EVs for balence-of-state. That is three winner-take-all, not none.

If Maine had proportional, then Bush would have picked up one of the four EVs, or 1.9 of the four EVs, or 1.9 of the two balance-of-state after loosing both the two CD EVs, or ...

I suspect our having just 4 EVs has something to do with our putting two on the House districts, and two on the Senatorial districts.

All I know about Nebraska is that they grow corn.

Susan:

The issue is not whether or not allocating electoral votes by the popular vote is possibele. As you point out, it obviously is. The issue is whether a state may choose to do so by a ballot initative or referendum.

The obvious answer to that is NO because the Constitution of the United States specifically grants the power to determine the method of allocation of a state's electoral votes to the state legislatures and not to the people.

I hope to write on that subject soon.

the answer to the 2nd question is yes, it would apply this year. you can go to this site www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcsstaff/balpage.htm
click 2004 draft blue book ballot analysis, and get the whole proposal or a final draft of an overview.
it would affect the election because it goes into effect before the electoral college of colorado casts their votes in december.

Another question that occurs (Though I don't have my pocket Constitution at hand and even so the answer of the question could be subject to debate) is do any Constutional Amendments, those during the Civil Rights and Reconstruction eras (XIV) in particular, do anything that could be seen as superceding Article 2 Section 1?

In answering the 4th questions from above, can CO have such an amendment to change the Electoral College from winner-take-all to proprtional.

Answer: Definetly YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Under Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Us Consitition, "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct...."
which really refers to that is up to each state how to allocate its presidential electors, or how the presidential electors are chosen.

In the 19th century some states did have a proprtional system, some went towards winner-take-all, and even some had the state legistaure themselves chose the electors (in fact SC kept on chosing presidential electors by its legislature until after the Civil War).

So if Colorodians want to change is election statues through its initiative/refendum process to have its presidential electors to be proportionate it can and its perfectly constitutional.

The worst part of any of these arguments is that we aren't looking at it in a vacuum. The opinions are driven (for the most part) by which candidate each decision will impact/help/hurt. Until this can be looked at as a right or wrong system that is not candidate or situationally driven, nothing good can come of this. If it is right in one situation, it should be right in all... therefore, if it is good for Colorado, then why not Texas and California... watch the opinions change if this same thing is proposed in those two states. Kant’s categorical imperative can do wonders in this situation.

All of the nay or yeah sayers should evaluate where they really stand on the issue if they take Bush and Kerry out of the picture. On a whole, is this the best system to be in? If it is a fair/good system in Colorado, shouldn’t it carry over to all states? If the answer is no, attempt to check/recognize your motivation for saying no. While I realize it is difficult to place yourself in a bubble, try to for the sake of what is the best system without being tainted by outside beliefs/pressures.

I live in Colorado and am a proud and die-hard independent - all political parties are evil.

I think the very presence of this measure on the ballot is an infringement, if not an out-right violation of my voting rights.

This is a back door route to popular vote for the presidency, which a solid majority of the electorate supports, and reduces the possibility for a winner to prevail with fewer popular votes than another. As noted by others, using this method in California while maintaining a winner-take-all system in Texas would be unfair to Democrats. However, and also as noted by others, states like these that are dominated by one party are unlikely to pass such an initiative. (If Republicans started such an initiative in California, Democrats might counter by proposing that, if passed, it only becomes effective when, say, both Florida and Texas pass similar initiatives). In practice, the concept is only likely to prevail in competitive states such as Colorado and Florida - the parties don't know for sure if it is good or bad for them, and therefore dont go all out to oppose it. However, as this (much) more closely represents the will of the people, I think it is a good thing.

Consider that it is the competitive states that are plagued with recounts; at most one EV would be affected by a recount in states using this system. Had this system been used in Florida in 2000 there would have been little interest in the New Mexico and Florida recounts.

Consider also that neither party is eager to enfranchise voters deemed likely to vote for the other party. This system somewhat removes the incentive for chicanery, at least as far as the presidential race goes.

Finally, as noted by others, 2% spoilers such as Nader could not swing more than one EV in any state. Such candidates might get more votes, showing the country the real interest in their (usually) one issue, while reducing the chance of affecting the outcome.

JK

After posting the above comments I re-read the lengthy thoughts posted by Dwight Meredith of USA Today. In my view, none of the four questions he asks should affect an individual's decision to vote for this measure. Will it pass, when would it take affect, who it helps, and can they do it are, as he says, not yet knowable; on its face it brings us closer to a one man/one vote democracy*, and those who support such a democracy can happily vote for the measure. No doubt if this approach can be used, say, by the Republicans to advance their cause in California, it will be. The idea of changing the EV system through the ballot box is out - voting for this measure will neither open or close Pandora's box.

Another writer wrote that, if the measure passes, Colorado would be ignored in future elections. Frankly, I don't envy the barrage of ads that are endured by those living in the battleground states.

* It was the US Supreme Court that mandated the one man/one vote system, which requires that all congressional districts be redrawn, if necessary, to achieve an equal population even when a state's number of districts does not change. I suspect the court will not turn down the will of the people in imposing a proportional distribution of a state's EV's.

JK

I cannot believe anyone would seriously consider passing this amendment. It boils down to: do we want Colorado to have 9 electoral votes, or 1? Colorado will always be split to the point where one candidate will receive 5 electoral votes, while the other will receive 4. If Colorado is not split like this, then I can just about promise you the election will be such a landslide it does not even matter (look up results of our past elections...I have not done so but I am sure this is right). So the 4 votes for each candidate will cancel out, and we are left with one electoral vote. Why on Earth would people in Colorado want to have less impact on an election than Montana which has a fraction of our states population?

The fact is, this measure would make every vote count...less. I think the idea of doing a system like this makes a lot of sense, but for the ENTIRE country. If we are alone in dividing our votes, all it does is makes it so the presidential race in Colorado matters less than any other state in the country. Also, when Colorado may be redivided in our electoral count, we may have 8 or 10 electoral votes. Then suddenly Colorado will have absolutely no impact on the election at all. I find it rather scary that this measure is not being easily defeated. It is being pushed by Californians and liberals to affect THIS election, with no regard to future elections, or to our state at large. I can understand the frustration of liberals who feel their vote does not count, but the same is true across the country in states where your candidate loses. Why should Colorado be a state to sacrifice the influence on an election we have, when the rest of the country does not?