Stupid: Electoral College, winner take all by state
More stupider: Electoral College, electors split within states, with two bonus electors by state
Most stupidest: Some states using stupid and some states using more stupider method.
If you think the college is broken, don’t fix it, ditch it.
Not to get snitty about your state’s laws, but I’m told that one reason this was attempted specifically in Colorado is that some provision, IIRC in the state’s Constitution, holds that any law passed by initiative and referendum is legally precisely equivalent to one adopted by the state legislature, and legally to be regarded as having been passed by the legislature. Ergo…
Just to be clear, I’m not in the “good idea to go proportional” crowd. As long as the EC is part of our constitution, a state only does itseslf a disservice by opting out of the winner takes all method of assigning electors. And CO’s method, per this inititative, is the worst kind of all.
I believe that every state should apportion its electors proportionately (not by district) this year. I would say, “& hereafter,” but it’s only until the massive reform of the electoral college I’m planning (here in Nowhere Land).
Please, feel free, I get snitty about my state’s laws all the time.
I’ve heard that too, Polycarp, but I’ve not been able to find any details. My understanding is that it is not any specific law or amendment, but that case law has determined in some cases that a citizen initiative is, as you say, “legally precisely equivalent to one adopted by the state legislature, and legally to be regarded as having been passed by the legislature.” Seems like a slender reed to rest on, and, as we all know, a state law or constitution that violates the U.S. consitution is null. Well, if it passes, at least we can be certain that it will be in court the next day.
God, if the election results hinge on a court case related to this initiative…
IANAL, but it sure seems to me that something voted on “by the people” should be equivalent to something voted on by the legislature.
I wonder where Fiver went, and why he didn’t return to acknowledge his error and apologize.
Must be liberal media bias. 
I’m all for democracy but federal elections are subject to federal law. Now if it were a national referendum, I would feel differently.I don’t think so. While it would effectively enfranchise millions of voters it still wouldn’t give everyone a vote, let alone an equal vote. It is closer to a popular vote but it isn’t one. And it creates some unique problems of its own mostly due to the fact that if no candidate gains a majority of electors the election is decided in the House with each state delegation receiving a single vote. Proportional elections would encourage the growth of third parties which would make it less likely for an outright majority of electors. Even without this encouragement the use of a proportional system would have thrown the election into the House in 1960, 1968, 1992, 1996, and maybe even 2000 depending on how you round the fractions.
Since the minor parties would be unlikely to have any House members ( who wouldn’t be elected proportionally ) to rely on their best electoral strategy would be to try to get enough electors to control the balance of power and then cut a deal to have them vote for one of the major canddiates . This would loosen the bond between popular votes and electoral votes as electors voted for candidates other than the one they were elected on the promise of voting for. Despite a lot of talk about “faithless electors” no elector has ever changed the outcome of an election by voting for someone other than the person they were pledged to. If we moved to a national proportional system I think that would quickly change. Personally, I am quite happy with electors doing just what we voters tell them to do and no more. No, I think if we are going to elect the president the best way to do so is direct election by the people as a whole.
Do you have any reason to believe this is true? I read every book on the constitutional convention I can get my hands on and have personally gone over the records of the debates there ( such as they are ) with an eye on the mode of selecting the president and I’ve seen no such evidence.
Nor does it make much sense. In 1787 the territory of the United States extended only to the Mississippi. ( At least on paper. We hadn’t exterminated or removed all of the Indians who lived on “our” land yet. ) This territory, as organized both by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and the Ordinance of 1784 which it replaced, was, or was to be, divided into districts which, when they gained enough population, were intended to become states. Now sure, the Framers might have upset this destiny and denied these territories entry as states equal to the original thirteen but the idea that the western territories would refuse admission to the Union wasn’t much of a possibility. Now sure there were various western independence movements before equal statehood was offered but once it was there was no real need to entice the West to take it. It would have taken open war for them to refuse.
I am in the “good idea to go proportional” crowd. While I do oppose a nationwide proportional system I don’t see the harm in one or even a few states with smaller populations assigning their electors in this manner. Nor am I convinced by your collectivist justification for adopting the unit rule ( winner take all). It might empower the state as a whole though only if this move by the state away of safe Republican status is a trend. It certainly helps the state power brokers. But my concern is for the individual citizen. This makes it much more likely a Coloradan will have electors to represent their vote. Hell, even a strong third party candidate might pick up an elector or 2.
I left work, went to my local comics shop, and bought this week’s comics.
Then I went home, put on my running shoes, and ran four miles.
After that I met some friends at a bar/restaurant to play Team Trivia; we played for two hours and came in second.
Back at home, I watched Lost, which I’d time-shifted, read a comic book, and then went to bed.
I think 3rd parties are a good thing. Lots of people would be able to vote for candidates who much more closely aligns with their views without ‘throwing away’ their vote. You’re right about how often we wouldn’t get 270 electors for one candidate, but I think that hould be changed also. Yes, I know that’s a much bigger change and would require an amendment.
I said ‘rural’ when I simply meant ‘less populous.’ Sorry. I thought everybody learned that in high school history - the legislature was set up as two houses with one proportional to population, and one not, so as to make states like Connecticut more willing to join - everyone was afraid Virginia would steamroller over the government. The electors were also intentionally reflective of this compromise, so that you need to win many states over a broad area to win the presidency. Here’s one quick cite (this is a tough thing to google): http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/bin/history/college.html
Here you go:
Well, that answers one of my questions – I now know where you were, and no longer need wonder.
It’s still unclear to me why you’ve not retracted your earlier characterization of my post as one-sided…
I’m in the Green Party so I agree about 3rd parties. The problems of the proportional system aren’t so great that they can’t be overcome so long as you are aware of them. The unique problems, that is. There is still no way to give every American an equal vote under such a scheme.
I think that depends. Consider a California that doles its votes out by district. Bush would suddenly find a reason to visit Orange County - for proof, look at his recent visits to the Maine district that’s close. Kerry could target urban areas in red states.
But the main reason to NOT go district with the EC votes is it manages to further disproportionately divide votes, rather than bridge that gap. It also strengthens the incentive for gerrymandering. With 435 districts out there, that’s not a desireable thing to police.
The federal Constitution trumps the state Constitution if the two disagree, and the federal Consitution explicitly requires the selection of electors to be done in a manner directed by the state legislature.
A big problem with this sort of proportional system is that it triggers more recounts – instead of only needing a recount when the vote is close to a two-way tie for first, you need one every time the vote is close to the dividing lines between a 3-6 split, a 4-5 split, a 5-4 split, etc.
It would get really hairy if a large state adopted such a system – if California (55 EV) used this sort of arrangement, you’d need recounts any time it the numbers were close enough to the dividing lines between 28-25-1-1, 27-25-2-1, 28-23-2-2, etc ad nauseam.
You are assuming that having a candidate target your district for campaigning is a ***good ***thing. I’m not so sure… And that was really only half a smiley.
That’s true. Being a Kerry supporter in Indianapolis, he could probably pick up this district. Maybe (he could probably pick up the 5th, up in South Bend). But that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t rather have him in Ohio right now, trying to take the state (assuming of course Ohio doesn’t go district as well).
But its up to the state to decide how the legislature makes this decision. If Colorado’s constitution says that the legislature automatically endorses anything passed by referendum, then I think the federal courts have to accept this.