Colo. to Vote on Electoral College Plan

[janx]

DENVER - Colorado Republican Marcy Benson remembers getting calls four years ago from people asking if she was going to change her vote when she cast her ballot as a presidential elector.



For years, few paid much attention to the Electoral College (news - web sites). But in the close election of 2000, every vote counted in the battle between Republican George Bush (news - web sites) and Democrat Al Gore (news - web sites). The GOP was worried that "faithless electors" might jump ship and vote for Gore.


"It surprised me that people thought I would change my vote," Benson said.


This year, the Electoral College system is getting a critical look even before the election from voters in Colorado. And what happens here could affect the outcome of the presidential fight between Bush and Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites).

(more at link): http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=2&u=/ap/20040912/ap_on_el_st_lo/electoral_college

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

1. I would support it if all the other states adopted this...

otherwise, I tend to agree it would minimize CO's impact. However, I have to admit, if I thought the state was an absolute guarantee for GWB, I might change that position. MKJ

[janx]

2. How would it minimize Colorado's impact?

I like the idea, myself. Maine and Nebraska (as the article points out) already have something like this arranged.

If anything, it would draw more attention and excitement to Colorado's presidential elections, no?

[liberalpragmatist]

6. No, nobody would bother campaigning there

personally, if i were a Colorado resident, I would vote "yes" because I agree on the principle of the thing. I want to abolish the electoral college, and this is the next best thing (well, sort of).

But the Republicans are right about this - this makes it unlikely that future presidential candidates will campaign much in Colorado. The margin will almost always be between 5 and 10 points, and so the margin will virtually always be a single electoral vote. In other words, it'll always split 5-4 in a close race, one way or the other. That difference of 1 electoral vote isn't enough to make candidates campaign in Colorado that much - sure they'll put some effort into it, but it won't be herculanean.

The only way this would work well were if it were done nationally.

[Lucky Luciano]

9. Imagine if the tables were turned

and the electoral college benefited the dems over the repubs and a democratic pollster made the point of CO always being decided by one electoral vote. Then the Freepers would never admit that the pollster had made a point - they would tell her to STFU or something. We, at DU can often realize a flaw whether it hekps us or the other side. Our side is always more interested in justice whereas they are only interested in winning at all costs - by hook or by crook - usually crook.

[janx]

13. Just like the Supreme Court, babee!

;-) Seriously, give one five and the other four. It's not getting rid of the electoral college; it's making the electoral college more democratic. The electoral votes would be more indicative, at least, of the population.

Hell, we only have nine in the first place, and John Kerry's due here on Friday. SOMEBODY'S going to appreciate five...

[Lucky Luciano]

7. See my post #5

Maine and Nebraska are not done the same as the articewl points out. In those states two votes go to the winner and the rest go by the votes in congressional districts. Colorado's proposal would simply give a proportional representation of the electoral college based on the popular vote in CO.

[janx]

12. Right, they are not the same. I like Colorado's idea better.

It's not, by the way, because I think it's a temporary solution to help get Bush out of office. I'd just like to see a more accurate portrayal of the wishes of the citizens of this state when it comes to election time.

[creeksneakers2]

3. If the legislature decides to send electors who pledge

to one candidate they have the power to do it. See Bush v. Gore.

[janx]

4. It should be interesting, especially

since whatever the voters decide would go into effect for the Nov. election results.

[Lucky Luciano]

5. The lady does make a point here:

"Katy Atkinson, a GOP pollster, said Colorado could end up always splitting its votes 5-4, in effect giving it one electoral vote. That would make the state a political backwater no candidate would waste time visiting. "


It would only be fair to Coloradans (?) if this was done for all states, but then we may as well scrap the electoral college altogether because of the way it gives overrepresentation to the rural areas.

[janx]

10. So are the elections now for Maine and Nebraska not fair?

I live in Colorado, and I wouldn't demand that all states do this. It's great that the people in our state will get the opportunity to ultimately decide.

And how would doing such a thing render Colorado a "political backwater"? That's pretty loaded language.

[Lucky Luciano]

14. Well CO would probably always be about 55-45

and therefore the elctoral votes would almost always be split 5-4, so the candidates will only be fighting for one EV in Colorado. Why bother with CO when a tiny state like Wyoming has 3 EVs up for grabs - nobody pays attention to WY for this reason, so CO would be cared about even less.

It only makes sense if every state did this...but if every state did this, then we might as well entirley do away with the electoral college - I would be in favor of this of course since it gives rural people overrepresentation as if their votes matter more than mine.

[ssimmons]

8. And if CA, NY and IL did this?

Do you think these states givin 40+% of their votes to Bush helps us?

I don't. Unless messing with electoral votes helps Democrats it should be left as it is.

[janx]

11. But that's not the point. I don't care what the citizens of those

states do with their electoral votes, because frankly, it's none of my business. It's their decision since it involves their states.

[Ohio rules]

15. Winner take all system should be abolished

A large state splitting its votes pretty much even would be a closer representation to that states preference popular vote results.
Otherwise,
as it is, canidates will continue to push for all the electoral votes of as few as four or five key states.

[Lucky Luciano]

17. see my post #16.

If we must have an electoral college then it should be winner take all. What we really need is for the popular vote to be the only thing that matters.

The only compromise I can think of would be to have electoral votes based not on states, but on congressional districts - that might be more representative and it may also be a fair compromise.

[Lucky Luciano]

16. Upon further review, I even wonder if doing this for

every state is a good idea...I think not.

The reason is that all states will almost always be decided by one EV - and if the state has an even number of EVs, then it may always be a wash! Only in states like CA, NY, TX, and maybe the next two big states will there be a reasonable chance of winning by more than two votes, but even then, it will not be by much more than three. The result is that each state outside of the top five is given one or no votes whether it is Ohio or Wyoming - and I am sorry to say that this is nowhere NEAR being representative of the popular vote for the country as a whole. This is a bad idea. Only the total disbanding of the electoral colelge is a good idea.

Here is how many 'effective' electoral votes each state will have. I have given states with an even number of EVs zero because it will usually be split evenly...with an odd number they get one, except for the large state that will have up to three because splitting 55 votes for say california could actually come down to being 29 to 26 based on a proportionate system, but not usually more of a difference than that. The first number is actual EVs and the last effective EVs with such a proposed system:
EVs Effective EVs
AL 9 1
AK 3 1
AR 10 0
AZ 6 0
CA 55 1, 3, or 5
CO 9 1
CT 7 1
DE 3 1
DC 3 1
FL 27 1 or 3
GA 15 1
HI 4 0
ID 4 0
IL 21 1 or 3
IN 11 1
IA 7 1
KS 6 0
KY 8 0
LA 9 1
ME 4 0
MD 10 0
MA 12 0
MI 17 1
MN 10 0
MS 6 0
MO 11 1
MT 3 1
NE 5 1
NV 5 1
NH 4 0
NJ 15 1
NM 5 1
NY 31 1 or 3
NC 15 1
ND 3 1
OH 20 0 or 2 (52.5% to 47.5% makes it 11-9 in EVs by rounding to 55% to 45%)
OK 7 1
OR 7 1
PA 21 1 or 3
RI 4 0
SC 8 0
SD 3 1
TN 11 1
TX 34 0 or 2
UT 5 1
VT 3 1
VA 13 1
WA 11 1
WV 5 1
WI 10 0
WY 3 1

So this system would give WY with one effective EV (EEV) more representation than WI with 10 EVs since WI would have 0 EEVs (Most of the time WI will be split 5-5 giving it no representation while WY would ALWAYS be 2-1 giving it one EEV). Minnesota and Massachusetts would be trivialized too...this system would give a gross overrepresentation to rural areas and utterly trivialize large population centers. Only a popular vote should matter, but if we must use the electoral college, then we should stick with the current system that is winner take all in most states.

[F.Gordon]

23. It would never come down to all states doing this

I am FOR A36, as discussed in our state forum....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=142x1367

My hope, at the very least, is that Colorado could start the ball rolling towards getting rid of the EC. Pipedream? Probably. But if you don't start somewhere....

[featherman]

18. I think only red states TX and GA should split their electoral votes

and that blue states like NY and CA should stick to winner take all. I think that would be very fair to the USA. Let's do it

[tedoll78]

19. I have a strange prediction about how this could work-out.

Then again, given how things played-out in 2000, perhaps it isn't all that strange..

Imagine the election coming-down where one of the candidates wins thanks to the referendum. For example, Kerry gets 4EVs from Colorado, allowing him to with 273 electoral votes to Bush's 265. And had Colorado not passed the referendum, Bush would've gotten all 9 electoral votes, giving him exactly 269EVs.

And imagine Bush going to court over the referendum. His claim? The U.S. Constitution gives power to state legislatures when deciding how to allot electoral votes. If a state legislature wants a winner-takes-all system, so be it. If a state legislature wants a district-by-district system (NE/ME), so be it. And if a state wants a roughly proportional-by-vote system, so be it. So here's the catch: the voters will have been the ones deciding how the distribute electoral votes - not the state legislature. According to the letter of the law, that might not be constitutional, Bush would argue.

Kerry's counterargument then? The state legislature set-up the referendum mechanism for citizens to change their state system as they please. The referendum followed the outlines set by the legislature, and thus, in a more indirect way, the electoral vote distribution was set.

This scares me, and part of that fear is that I can see this happening. Would the Supreme Court get involved again?

[janx]

20. BUT--the state legislature gave the voters the referendum

power in the first place. (As you mentioned.) We have lots of them here--although some, like medical marijuana, get kicked out by the Feds regardless.

I hope it won't happen again this time.

If the legislature wants to kick this thing out of the park--or rather, if it is able to--the referendum won't even make it to the ballot.

[tedoll78]

21. Still,

you see my scary point, right? The Supreme Court could put its stamp of approval on the "logic" of the Bush argument in this case. And the Bush argument could easily be marketed to a short-attention-span voting public.

I hope you're right about it not happening again. Hell, I'm getting pretty hopeful about Kerry's chances there, and part of me is hoping that he takes all 9EVs..

[janx]

22. I hope he does too. I fully expect a backlash to the referendum,

and I'm surprised we haven't seen one yet. Most people I've talked to here will vote for it, but the Feds will try to find a way to stick their noses into our state decision once again.

One hope I have is Salazar, who happens to be running for the Senate. He has been one fine attorney general, and he doesn't back down easily. (He saved us from the redistricting fiasco, and I wonder how he would approach a challenge by the Feds re the referendum/vote.)

It's going to be one very close election.

[Demonaut]

24. I'm voting for it no matter what any party says