This is a good opportunity to lock people into positions.
If Kerry wins Colorado, but Colorado’s EC votes are split, and this event costs Kerry the presidency, I can easily imagine a crowd of the usual suspects in here screaming that Colorado’s vote-splitting should be done, or shouldn’t take effect until the NEXT election, or some such. By the same token, I can easily imagine those same voices screaming that Colorado’s decision to split votes is valid and should be respected if Bush wins Colorado, but Colorado’s votes are split and the difference costs Bush the Presidency.
Equally, I can imagine the other (smaller) crowd of Usual Suspects in here, if Kerry wins Colorado, but Colorado’s EC votes are split, and this event costs Kerry the presidency, foursquare behind Colorado’s choice… and that same group screaming that Colorado’s decision to split votes is invalid, or should only apply to 2008 and beyond, if Bush wins Colorado, but Colorado’s votes are split and the difference costs Bush the Presidency.
So I thought this thread would be a good way to develop your positions NOW, before you know for sure who they might help.
Should Colorado vote to adopt a pro-rata award of its electoral votes based on popular vote percentage? And, if they adopt such a measure on this ballot, should it apply to the 2004 election?
I contend that Colorado has every right to decide how to aportion its electoral votes, and that the method of deciding by referendum instead of the legislature is a valid one. Further, while it would be wiser to apply this method to the next election and not this one to avoid controversy, there is no compelling reason that Colorado’s voters may not decide the issue now and apply it to this election.
Yes, I like pro rata selection of electors. My favorite method is you get two for winning the state as a whole, plus one for each congressional district in which you prevail.
That being said, NO it should not apply in 2004. This would be like deciding until the pitcher comes up to bat whether or not the DH is in effect. You go into the booth with the understanding of what the rules are, like them or not. Thus it seems to me only fair that we do it this way 2008 and beyond, should the voters decide.
Funny how both your scenarios make the Democrats look like whiners, like you can’t even envision a world where it costs Bush the win and Republicans complain about it.
Should it? As a Georgian, it’s none of my business. But I affirm that Constitutionally, Colorado has the right to adopt such a system, as Maine and Nebraska already have.
No, it shouldn’t. IANACS, but that seems like an ex post facto law to me, which is unConstitutional.
I intend to vote no on this first thing in the morning of November 2nd. I’ve been firmly against it all along; including refusing to sign the petition. If passed, it will (as written) apply to this election - that’s not optional - but I don’t think they should have written it that way.
I’ll accept these contentions as an assumption for your question, but I believe one is unconstitutional, and the other is ex post facto.
I’m for the split electoral college should Colorado’s citizens vote for that. (Coloradans? Coloradians? Coloradites?). If it passes, it should apply to this election (barring any constitutional problems with it of course). If it’s legal and it’s what they voted for, let 'em have it.
All states should split the electors. We’re just not as state-centric a Republic as we were when we were founded. Also, the way the electors are distributed favors rural states on purpose - so that rural states won’t be afraid to join the union. I don’t think that’s a big concern anymore.
I can easily, by the way, envision how it would cost the Dems the election. In rural states Bush tends to lead Kerry by about 60-40. In states where Kerry leads the amounts don’t tend to be that high.
Oh, OK. So either way you think it’s unconstitutional - whether for the present election or future elections. That’s what threw me.
Well, referenda make it on the ballot via the legislature. If the state legislature directed that the method for choosing electors be dependent on what the voting populace says, that looks constitutional to me.
It’s not much different from the legislatures in every state deciding that the populace elect electors - which is what happens in every state. It’s just one level of indirection removed.
I think the method Colorado is using to split is rather foolish, as it does, IMHO, make them fairly irrelevant in the grand scheme. Given the size of the state, 9 votes, only 1 or 2 will be up for grabs each election, even a huge margin one way or the other only gives you 3 votes. There is little reason to go after the colorado vote, you need to hit 3x as many people to get the same effect as campaigning in the small states.
I like BobLibDem’s method, I think that’s the Maine method. With that, at least you have a good shot at gaining more than a vote or two.
I also think its a terrible that the voters don’t even know how the votes are to be tallied until after they vote. Who runs an election like that?
So, in a nutshell. No on the splitting method, and no on having it valid this election.
We do have referenda initiated by the legislature, but this is not one. This comes from a citizen petition which bypasses the legislature every step of the way.
Jonathan, a businessman from California thought this one up.
And I’ve hijacked this thread all to hell and back. Sorry, Bricker.
Barring that, I support schemes like Colorado’s which proportionally award electors based on the popular vote.
But now is not the time to be making that decision. The ballot measure should have been in 2002 or wait until 2006 so that people who go to the polls in 2004 know how their state’s electoral votes will be awarded. IMHO, Colorado should be a winner-take-all state in 2004.
The people that thought it up were the people that were disgusted by Bush’s victory in the state (50.8% to 42.4%) and his exceptionally narrow victory in the Electoral College in 2000. By doing this they’re actually minimizing the impact that Colorado has on the election, but hey, it’s better than Bush winning again due in part to their all-or-nothing approach to electoral votes. If they had had this format in 2000 Bush wouldn’t have won. Well, at least not until it went to a majority Republican Congress.
I’m with This Year’s Model on this. It’s really, really stupid, and a transparent attempt to try to manipulate a close election. Little do they know that the consequences of this action will linger for years to come, when no candidates visit their state and when it backfires for the first time with a candidate that they really want.
Yes. Direct popular vote would be preferable, of course, but at least this is a slight step towards diminishing the anti-democratic (note the little d) distortions caused by the EC.
Yes, as a matter of policy. No, as a matter of law. As I recall from the 2000 post-election debacle, federal law requires electors to be chosen under laws that are already in place on election day. Making this “retroactive” won’t cut it.