Colorado vote on Electoral College could determine who's president

[seemslikeadream]

FRANK DAVIES

Knight Ridder Newspapers


WASHINGTON - Anticipation of a close, exciting presidential election is mounting, so here's an election-night scenario that rivals the "hanging chad" madness of 2000 in Florida:

President Bush and Sen. John Kerry are neck and neck in the electoral vote count, with Kerry just slightly ahead but each just a few short of the magic number for victory: 270. Bush narrowly wins Colorado, which has nine electoral votes, and that puts him over the top.

But just as the networks are about to declare him the winner, word comes that Colorado voters have adopted little-noticed Amendment 36, scrapping the winner-take-all system - starting with this election.

The state's electoral votes are awarded by percentage of the popular vote. So instead of getting all nine votes, Bush gets five, Kerry gets four - and Kerry squeaks in, until the first lawsuit is filed at midnight and armies of lawyers parachute into Denver to battle over the referendum.

"If that amendment passes, and the candidates are in the 265-275 range of electoral votes, it could be a legal nightmare," predicted Michael Kanner, a political scientist at the University of Colorado at Boulder. "The courts could decide the election."

more
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/local/9895983.htm

[tedoll78]

1. This political scientist is saying what I've been saying forever.

I see two nightmare scenarios:

1) Kerry has 268EVs before Colorado is factored-in. He loses overall in CO, but the referendum passes and the state awards him 4EVs, putting him at 272EVs. The Bush campaign sues, claming that the passed referendum is unConstitutional: "The US Constitution requires that state legislatures decide how to allot electors. Since the referendum didn't go through the CO state legislature, it would be unConstitutional." That's what the Bushies would argue. It would go to court.

2) Imagine #1's scenario, but with the candidates swapping places: The initiative passes, and Bush needs those four electoral votes to win. Imagine it going to court, with the Kerry camp using roughly the same argument as the Bushies do in Scenario #1.

My major fear is that, regardless of the validity of any argument on either side, the case will always find its way through the system in the hands of the Supreme Court. And then we all know which way the court is stacked then..

[Q3JR4]

18. That's true, but consider this.

O'Connor voted with the rest of them in the 2000 ruling because she wanted to retire. She hasn't yet. This seems to point out to me that she saw the way the current president was going to pull his shit and decided to stick around. If that's the case, if we do have a repeat of last year I'm betting that it will be reverse of the results.

[tedoll78]

19. That has been in the back of my mind the entire time.

And I've heard the rumors of how Justice Kennedy could've been convinced by the liberals if there had been more time. But I'm just a bit wary of anything of this magnitude going to the Supreme Court once again.. who knows?

[mountainvue]

44. There's a great article in this

month's Vanity Fair and from what I read Kennedy wasn't ever going to vote in Gore's favor. He mereley wanted to give his decision the impression that it had been agonizing for him when in fact it had not.

[Yunaleska]

27. Number one is BS

Under the same logic the legislature could award them as it sees fit. IF the legislature lets them be assigned in that manner, however, that is essentially approval. After all, they did nothing to stop it.

As for number 2 you should have written about a tie... If there was one it would go to the house, where we would surely be screwed.

[tedoll78]

35. Umm..

look it up in the Constitution. Article 2. It's very cut-and-dry. It's perfectly legal for a state's legislature to delegate electors as it sees fit.

[klook]

2. Proportional elector allocation is OK

but instant runoff voting would be much better.

References:
Amendment 36 - http://www.members.aol.com/lwvco/AMEND36.html
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/whatis2.htm

[onenote]

3. is it clear

that the referendum is effective with respect to this presidential election or is it possible that it would be interpreted as applying only prospectively?

onenote

[Psst_Im_Not_Here]

4. Try living here

and trying to decide which way to vote!

On one hand, I think it may be the right thing to do, but then I think of the ways it could effect the election good and bad. All or nothing or any EV's would be better than none. If the race weren't SO close here, it would be so much easier.

[Carla in Ca]

5. Please explain

Kerry is doing well there but it has always been a red state. Why would there be an amemdment to split now?

[Psst_Im_Not_Here]

6. It hasn't always been a red state

It went to Clinton in 1996. Right now it's a virtual tie here. We could swing either way this time and it's a tough decision.

There are Kerry people on both sides of this issue. So far, both parties are opposed to it. It's really a hot potato. I'm not sure this is the time to be voting on it, alas, we have no choice. And it does effect THIS election.

[Carla in Ca]

9. I didn't know Clinton won it in 1996

Now it makes sense. I couldn't figure out why, as a red state, they would do something that hurt *...now I see.
Because Kerry COULD win, they are making sure he doesn't get all 9.
What a dilemma! And you vote on this November 2nd, and it goes into effect immediately?

[Psst_Im_Not_Here]

12. Yep

immediately. Scary huh?!

[mountainvue]

46. He didn't. He won it in '92. n/t

[denverbill]

7. I'm definitely voting for it.

It just makes sense.

Why should our Bush or Kerry get all 9 votes when our state is almost evenly divided?

A Republican front group is even running radio ads on Air America pretending that they think Kerry will win Colorado and calling for Democrats to vote against the measure because it might hurt Kerry.

[Parche]

8. electorate

I think it should be uniform for the whole country
not just state by state
Colorado should not be allowed to do that
just like Maine should not be allowed to

[factcheck]

32. And how does it make sense?

You mean the part where Colorado, which is right now at least a moderately important state with 9 electoral votes to be won, becomes a totally unimportant state with only 5 votes to be had at best?

Sorry. All or nothing. Forget about which candidate it helps or doesn't. In the long run, it hurts the state.

[Realityhack]

37. You go it.

Its a great idea if it were done universaly accross the country but with just one state going it alone it means that there is likely at most a whoping 1 electoral vote (perhapse 2) to be won in that state. It is unlikely the split would be large enough for either to win more than that. Concequently instead of a battlegrounds state it becomse a rather meaningless state.

RH

[AliceWonderland]

42. Mr.Alice is strongly in favour of A36 too

I'm not a citizen so I'm beside the point. I've also heard that radio ad on Air America and I was not impressed. I didn't know it was a bought by a front group. Shoulda figured.

ETA: If A36 passes, I take it for granted that Colorado will be right in the eye of the storm. The lawyers really will descend...

[mountainvue]

45. Colorado went

to Clinton in 1992 but he lost it in '96 because he didn't campaign here.
Gary Hart would've been president if they didn't screw him over with the Donna rice thing.

[Zynx]

10. What sucks is that this year we have a chance of winning CO outright.

[Psst_Im_Not_Here]

11. That's what I mean!

It's so hard to choose. He *could* win outright which would net him 9 EV's or none if he loses, if it doesn't pass. If it does pass he would get 5 (if he wins)or 4 EV's(if he loses).

Then there are the legal ramifications, both parties would likely challenge this in court, if it passes and the race depends on the EV's from Colorado.It is a potential mess like Florida was last time. What a nightmare!

[Carla in Ca]

13. You will have to look at the

last poll done there prior to Nov 2nd to determine which way to go.

[tedoll78]

15. Yup.

Imagine.. Kerry wins the Gore states, plus New Hampshire, plus Colorado.. but Colorado's referendum passes and he only gets 5EVs from Colorado.

The race would then be a 269-269 tie, where it would go into the House and Bush would win again.

[NinetySix]

14. Oh my God...

>snip<

"If that amendment passes, and the candidates are in the 265-275 range of electoral votes, it could be a legal nightmare," predicted Michael Kanner, a political scientist at the University of Colorado at Boulder. "The courts could decide the election."

>snip<

I think I've had that nightmare!

[progressivebydesign]

16. No doubt this was engineered by the GOP to force ANOTHER court battle

I have no doubt the GOP wants the election forced into the courts AGAIN... it's the only way those smarmy fuckers can "win" it. Does anyone know the genesis of this new electoral system in Colorado? Have any idea who started this??

[paulk]

25. Ron Tupa

a Democrat from Boulder.

[factcheck]

33. I don't think

that this was engineered by either solid Republicans or solid Democrats. This was engineered by some people who clearly did not think the whole thing through from A-Z.

[Sterling]

36. If this was used in every state.

We may never have another puke pres ever.

Proportional rep is better if you ask me. Ome man one vote. The EC gets in the way of democracy.

[paulk]

39. you are completely wrong.

Proportional representation actually exaggerates the advantage rural states gain under our current system. And rural states vote Republican.

for example -

Take the most populous state, California, and put it next to the least populous, Wyoming. In the 2000 election one EV in CA represented 193,950 voters. In WY one EV represented 71,017. That is - one EV in WY is worth roughly 3 times one in CA.

Proportional representation in 2000 would have given Gore 6 more EVs than Bush in CA and Bush 3 more than Gore in WY, since the victory margin in WY was better than two to one (68-28).

So... now we have one EV in CA representing - 1,808,000 voters and one EV in WY representing 71,000 voters - or 25 times that of CA. Even if the split in WY is 2-1, that's not much better. It makes the WY EV represent 213,000 voters, or (roughly) nine times that of California.

This hardly favors Democrats. And it's hardly one man, one vote.

[wuushew]

47. Wrong wrong wrong......

Go back to the popular vote of 2000. Multiply Gore's popular percentage(in each state) by each state's electoral vote. The number if you don't round to whole numbers is 273.5. I will await your fact checking.

[factcheck]

49. Except...

that you cannot simply use the number of voters.

First, we must distinguish between members of the electorate (all who are eligible to be registered voters) and actual voters (all who registered to vote and voted).

Now, sure, let's say 1 guy in Alaska (no offense to women, there are many more men in Alaska than women) votes. His one vote essentially casts all of Alaska's electoral votes. But, in California, EVERY member of the electorate votes. So, each vote in California certainly seems to be worth less than the single vote in Alaska.

However, let us keep in mind that each electoral vote represents roughly the same number of members of the electorate in every state. Just because there are differences in the percentage of those who are actual voters does not mean that one electoral vote is worth more or less anywhere.

The electoral college system was designed with very clear reasoning in mind: keeping any one party from completely controlling the country. This is not quite as evident in a two-party system, but remember that we did not always have only 2 dominant parties and it is likely that we will not always have only 2 dominant parties.

Imagine a situation where 50% of the country generally voted Republican, 30% generally voted Democrat and 20% generally voted, well, Libertarian (or whatever). If that went on for too long, the Republican party would simply control at least 50% of the Congress at all times and would always win the Presidential elections.

This would be absolute in a direct populous vote.

Now, apply the electoral college and it becomes different because each state is not going to be a 50/30/20 split. This is what we see today. Some states would be more Democrat, some would be more Libertarian, etc. So, each person's vote in those states becomes far more powerful because, for example, rather than a voter for the Democratic candidate 'throwing away' their vote for someone who could never win, they are now able to cast their vote to give their candidate their state's electoral votes. Now it becomes possible to beat a potential tyranny created by popular vote even if YOUR candidate does not receive the lion's share of the popular vote.

On the surface, it does seem odd to elect a President who did not win the popular vote. But preventing a single party from completely ruling the country is the reason for our electoral system.

I, for one, believe the system should remain exactly as it is. Those who feel 'disenfranchised' by casting a ballot for a candidate for President in a state where their preferred party rarely wins, is only creating that feeling themselves. Their vote may be lost in a manner today, but what about tomorrow? If YOUR state slowly changes to YOUR party being dominant, do you really want to be giving electoral votes to the other party? I would hope not.

[paulk]

55. The problem is -

that each electoral vote doesn't represent roughly the same number of members of the electorate in every state.

Each state gets two electoral votes added for it's two Senators, so -

Wyoming, with a population of 493,782 gets 3 electoral votes or one elector for every 164,594 people.
California, with a population 33,871,648 gets 54 electoral votes or one elector for every 627,252 people.
That's not even roughly the same.

Even if you take away the two extra electoral votes for the Senators you get:

Wyoming - one electoral vote per 493,782
California - one electoral vote per 651,377

Closer, but still not one man, one vote.

This is how a candidate whose support comes mostly from urban areas (Al Gore), can get half a million more votes than his opponent (whose support comes from rural areas) and still lose in the electoral college.

The point I'm trying to make in the upthread post is that the proportional voting amendment actually exaggerates this imbalance in the distribution of electoral votes and most certainly would not lead to "Republicans never getting elected" if this was used nationwide. It would give the Republican party an advantage.



* numbers are from 2000 census

[Bill McBlueState]

40. Proportional rep is better, but

The best solution is to just *use the damn popular vote.*

Every other democratically elected chief executive in the US is elected by direct popular vote, from mayors to governors. Why can't we do the same for president? The Constitution needs amended big time in this case.

[Richardson08]

17. Gore would have won if Colorado had this system in 2000

[daleo]

21. They would have had to have voted on it before 2000, though

If the referendum occurred at the same time (2000), Bush and company would have managed to get it into the Supreme Court and have it overruled. I imagine they will be looking for any excuse to put it to the Supreme Court again.

[donco6]

20. I've decided to vote against it.

Though I like the general idea, I think Kerry may take the state altogether. It's just not worth the risk of losing 4 electoral votes.

[denverbill]

22. Kerry wouldn't be 'losing' 4 electoral votes if it passes.

Colorado had 7 EV's in 2000.

Assume Kerry wins and the amendment passes. Kerry probably gets 5 votes and Bush 4. Bush loses 3 EV's that he had in 2000, and Kerry gains 5. That means an 8 point turnaround for Kerry from what Gore got in 2000.

On the other, more likely hand, if Bush wins again, Bush gets 5 votes, Kerry 4. Bush loses 2 EV's that he had in 2000, and Kerry gains 4, a turnaround of 6.

In either scenario, a 6 or 8 point turnaround would've been enough to tip the vote for Gore in 2000. Win or lose, if the amendment passes, Kerry wins.

I personally have very little faith in Colorado going Democratic this year. Strickland was supposedly polling even with Allard in 2002, but Allard ended up winning by like 10 points. I'll be ecstatic if he pulls it off, but I just don't think it's going to happen.

[donco6]

23. So are you voting for it?

I heard Salazar on MTP and he doesn't support it. That kinda pushed me off the fence, but I could still be wrong . . .

[denverbill]

26. I could be wrong too.

I know one of the main arguments against it is that it 'diminishes our importance' in an election, so politicians aren't as likely to try to buy our votes by giving us transportation money, military bases, etc.

But I don't like that kind of pandering anyway, so that's fine with me.

[donco6]

31. Now I'm even more confused!

Thanks a lot! :)

On principle, I don't think it's fair that in a state that's split so evenly that one candidate gets all the electoral votes. So in that sense, I favor the amendment.

Strategically, however, I'm less sure.

I think what I'll do is watch the polls and try to gauge which way the wind is blowing with Bush v. Kerry. If he appears to be losing, I'll vote for it; if he's winning, I'll vote against.

Does that sound wishy-washy enough?

[factcheck]

51. It depends....

Are you willing to try and gain the chance at 4 electoral votes in this election only to give them away in the next one?

If Kerry wins this election and really did not need those 4 votes (or even if they did help), but he loses in 4 years because of a reversal of the situation, did you really help matters?

If this stands up to legal challenges, it is an amendment to the state constitution and will not be undone anytime soon.

Be VERY careful when making a decision to amend ANY state's constitution over ANY issue, especially an issue that you are saying may benefit you today, but may hurt tomorrow.

[paulk]

28. Allard won by 5 points

51 - 46 in 2002.

[Spangle]

24. Shouldn't think about THIS race!!!

This is about this race and every race after. IT's about the people having more of the control of the electoral college. I'm sorry, we shouldn't decided this issue based upon the 2004 Presidentual race and which would be more "helpful". Instead, we shoud encourage other states to follow suite! Might be the first step to getting a direct vote.

[Yunaleska]

29. There is no "might" about the first step

for a direct vote.

The ONLY way to get a direct vote is to amend the constitution - and the first step is to get a movement going to directly do that.

This is only an attempt to patch a problem. It is not a real solution, nor will it lead to one.

[factcheck]

34. No

A direct vote is really not the way to go. I have seen the overall analysis on the electoral college and the short and sweet version is that a direct vote dilutes the individual's vote and makes each vote actually less important.

Besides, people whine about Gore taking the popular vote in 2000, but what about the day when the 'other guy' gets the popular vote, but not the electoral vote? My guess is that the same people whining today would suddenly think everything is OK.

No, I do not think that we should look at changing our electoral system simply as a knee-jerk reaction to one or two elections. This system has worked for a very long time and it will continue to work. The more immediate problem is the fraud and court challenges that go out which are turning our country into a legalocracy where all of our votes are diminished by BOTH parties simply in their overall zeal for power.

Let us change the real problem.

[Thor_MN]

38. The EC is outdated, period.

It worked for a time where is was impossible to be known, much less campaign nationally. But it's no longer needed - it's outlived it's need due to technology. There are other voting schemes that COULD be better than a direct vote, but I think that ranked choices are too complex the average voter. On the other hand, ranked choices make it easier to say "Anyone but that asshole."

[Bill McBlueState]

41. how?

a direct vote dilutes the individual's vote and makes each vote actually less important.

How does a direct vote dilute the individual's vote in ways the electoral college does not?

[factcheck]

52. See my post higher up

I read something really good on this. If I can find it, I will post a link to it. I generally was not to certain about the electoral college vs. direct vote issue until I read the article. It was great at explaining the actual math behind the issue as well as the reasoning that the electoral college was designed - in order to prevent absolute tyrannical rule by one party or class.

[donheld]

30. If every state did it

it might be OK, but if only Colorado does it, then it's a bad idea. This is why i've been telling everybody i can to vote NO on this measure.:think:

[mountainvue]

43. That's why

I will be voting against Amendment 36. Now is not the time for this. I think CO is going blue this year anyway. An unprecedented number of new voters have registered this year.

[TahitiNut]

48. If all states did this, then every state might as well have ONE vote.

How many states had a popular vote margin that was greater than 1.5 times the electoral representation?
:shrug:

[kurtyboy]

50. In this most bizzare of worlds, there is ambiguity

Let's say Kerry and Bush go through a scenario like Fla in 2000. Nobody knows the outcome (under either a winner-take-all or apportioned system) and one side is looking for the other to flinch.... Who will blink first? Will it be the side for which the advantage is clear under a recount, or the side under which the new law will prevail? (if, of course, the new law passes...)

The result will be telling about the advance, in-place strategies, just as results were in 2000.

In 2000, there were several states that were more or nearly as close as Florida. New Mexico was decided by only 400 or so votes. Why did the Bush team decide to fight only in Florida, and not contest NM or Ohio or Oregon?

Perhaps they already knew the fix was in.....

Just sayin'....

[fujiyama]

53. I would vote for it

I would not if I was more confident Kerry would win the state outright, but several recent polls show Bush to be leading by about the same margin he won it by. Granted, some polls also show it to be tied.

I've heard that it's unlikely for the measure to pass and Bush to win the state at the same time, because democratic support for the measure is high. At the same time most republicans apparently oppose it.

It definetely is a dilemna for Coloradans but I'd probably vote for it if I lived in the state.

[factcheck]

56. Foolishness

Anyone who would gamble away their future votes and those of their children, etc. based on how something might effect this one election should have their right to vote revoked.

Sorry, but voting for a state constitutional amendment like this if it helped Kerry, but voting against it if it didn't is just plain dumb. It is not looking ahead nor planning for the future.

What happens if Kerry gains popularity as President during his first term, but we still have a rather divided country in 2008 and Colorado becomes the deciding factor then? Kerry needs all 9 votes to win, or 8 or 7, whatever, but, because people who thought the way you do voted in this stupid amendment, Kerry gets only 5 votes.

That's it. Game over. It's a win for the other guy!

Shortsightedness is a sure way to defeat.

<venting over - thank you>

[JCMach1]

54. I can see the Repugs making an ex post facto

argument for this referendum though if it causes Kerry to win.


Yes, this is a legal muckhole waiting to happening.

BTW: on the legal merits, the ex post facto argument is more than likely legit!