I’m not solidly against the amendment; I don’t really care one way or the other about its end result. If the citizens of Colorado want their electoral votes to be distributed proportionally, or all-or-nothing like most states, they’re welcome to do it either way, AFAIAC.
However, I’m totally against the retroactivity business. That’s a travesty.
But I’m all for dispensing with the EC and going directly to popular vote. The one argument for the EC that I couldn’t dismiss before 2000 (as opposed to the multitude that I could) was that it provided a clear resolution to the election in situations where the outcome of the popular vote might be too close to call, while the reverse was unlikely.
However, it then raises another question: is the broad definition of “Legislature” in Colorado state court jurisprudence definitive for the purposes of interpreting the term “Legislature” in Article II, §1 of the federal Constitution?
On the one hand, the federal courts normally defer to the state courts’ interprepration of state constitutions and state laws, so it may be that the federal courts would accept that under Colorado state law, the “Legislature” includes the people exercising their authority in a plebescite, and there’s no problem.
On the other hand, SCOTUS has held that in some cases it is not bound by state court interpretation, where the state laws/constitution bear on an issue of federal constitutional law. See in particular, the comment in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board cited in my previous post:
See also the concurring reasons of Rehnquist C.J. in Bush v. Gore:
The federal Constitution refers to the people of a state as distinct from the Legislature of a state, particularly in the provisions dealing with the election of federal officials. For example, Article I, § 2 provides that the “people of the several states” shall choose the Representatives.
Originally, Article I, §3 provided the Senators from each state would be “chosen by the Legislature thereof”; this provision was altered by the 17th Amendment, which provides that each state’s Senators are now “elected by the people thereof.”
I think there’s a legitimate argument that the Constitution draws a clear distinction between the people of the state, and the state Legislature, and assigns some federal electoral duties to the people, and others to the Legislatures. It’s at least arguable that an individual state should not be able to change this allocation by giving an extended definition of “Legislature” to include the people. That allocation may be fine and dandy for matters of state law, but cannot be used to change the allocation of duties under the federal Constitution.
All of which suggests another reason to vote against this proposition: if it passes, and the electoral vote tally is really, really close, the Colorado voters would just be setting themselves up for a court fight in November, just like Florida in 2000, creating further uncertainty and cynicism about the electoral process.
Of course it will- there is already two states that divvy their Electors in a manner that State determined. (Maine & Nebraska?). Why should this be any less Constitutional? That’s nonsense.
But our OP has made a decent argument. He’s wrong, however. What really should be done is ALL states elect their Electors in this manner. Then, the Candidates have to pay attention to ALL states. Bush can’t just blow off California- then spend 4 year buckfucking us- becuase even though he can’t win CA, he sure can get 40something%.
Starting with CO is not such a bad idea. But it needs to go to all states.
Um…did you actually readNorthernPiper’s posts before spouting off this waste of electrons?
As he noted, the Constitution invests the power of selecting the manner by which each state selects its electors in the legislature of each state. Not in the general electorate of each state. The legislature.
As I noted, the reason why supporters of the Colorado measure think that the measure is constitutional is the case law in the state which broadly defines the people acting through a ballot initiative as part of the legislature.
As NP pointed out through some pretty exhaustive research, there are serious flaws with the idea that the state’s judicial history is sufficient to overcome the federal constitutional objections.
Additionally, neither Nebraska nor Maine have proportional splitting of electoral votes. Both apportion their votes by Congressional district, with the overall popular vote winner in the state getting the two “Senate” votes. BTW, neither state has split its electoral vote since adopting this system. So the initiative is not similar to the Maine/Nebraska examples. I also find no indication (probably because the vote has never been split) that either state has faced a federal constitutional challenge on the issue, so there appears to be no direct precedent.
Did you have a substantive response to the criticisms he has raised in his posts? Or is “other states did it, it must be OK” the sum and substance of it?
DrDeth, I’ve been responding to the way this amendment is being advanced, not the substance. If the Colorado state Legislature chose to enact a law appointing electors by proportion of the popular vote, I wouldn’t see any constitutional objection. It’s the proposal to have the people set up the manner of appointment that raises questions, since the federal Constitution assigns that task to the state Legislatures. (I assume that in Maine and Nebraska, the proportional system was set out by their respective Legislatures in statutes.)
Which isn’t to bar the Legislature from consulting the people before making a change. I don’t see any objection to the Legislature deciding to hold a non-binding plebescite, asking the voters of the state if they prefer proportional allocation to an “all or nothing” approach. Once the plebescite has been held, the Legislature could take the results into account in deciding if the system should be changed.
It’s more than four. 1800 had Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr combine thier 73 electoral votes each against Adams and Pinckney (65 and 64, respectively). Obviously the EV isn’t exactly proportional to the popular vote, but we can assume Jefferson was a minority president.
Other minority presidents:
JQA, 1924
Rutherford B Hayes (he of the Compromise with Tilden) 1876
James Garfield, 1880 (4.449 million votes, against 4.442 million for Hancock and .309 million for Weaver).
and 6) Grover Cleveland, twice 1884 and 1892, again thanks to the Greenbackers and the Populists.
7)Woodrow Wilson, 1912, with 6.286M votes, against Taft’s 4.126, Roosevelt’s3.483 and Debs’ .897.
8)Harry Truman, 1948, 24.179 million votes for, 24.464 million against (including Strom Thurmaond, Henry Wallace and Norman Thomas)
9)John F Kennedy, 1960, thanks to Byrd’s States Rights Party Line.
Quibbles are what keep food on lawyer’s tables. Nothern Piper has done some really awesome reasoning on this, and I see no reason why this proposal (if passed) would not be found unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution. It relieves my mind a bit, but still… you never know. This question obviously worried the proposers as evidenced by the article Otto linked to. The constitution clearly states legislature.
The 1800 election was the spur to the 12th Amendment, which provided for separate voting for President and Vice-President. The intention of the voters was for Jefferson to be President, Burr VP. The system at the time didn’t allow it.
As to the rest: I’ll rephrase.
A president has been elected four times while not receiving the largest number of votes in the popular election.
But since the Civil war- only GWB has won without a plurality of the votes. The rest beat their main opponent- but a 3rd party candidate made them not get a true majority.
Wow, the Pretty Sure Quibble Doctrine! A rising star of constitutional jurisprudence is clearly in our midst!
Why would a United States Attorney General render an opinion on the topic? The question has not been properly before any AG and the AG would have no role in any case challenging the constitutionality of either the Nebraska or the Maine laws and would also have no role in arguing for or against the constitutionality of the Colorado initiative should it pass.
That is not the purpose of the Electoral vote. We do not have national elections in this country. We select our president through a vote cast by the Several States, not the people. Within each state, we vote to determine how our state’s votes will be cast. This is a very, very, very, very, very good thing, as it insures that a candidate has wide geographic appeal. Without the Electoral College, a candidate from California could just run up a big majority in his home state, and swing through New York and Chicago and be basically unbeatable. That would be bad.
No he doesn’t. A plurality is worthless in the College. You either have a majority, or you have a Congressionally brokered election.
America is designed for a two party system at the presidential level – or, at least, a two-major-candidate system, since the Constitution itself is party-agnostic, and the early leaders of this country mainly loathed the notion of powerful parties.
The problem with the way you’re trying to approach this issue is that you’re dealing with it using a notion of proportionality that is better suited for the style of legislative elections which are popular in Europe. That won’t work here, for both the reason that the office in question is a single-winner executive position, and America is not a centralized nation in the sense that most European countries are.
The most sensible form of Electoral reform is that undertaken by Maine and Nebraska, where each Congressional district in the state is assigned 1 electoral vote, and the candidate with the plurality in that district gets that vote. That would then leave the two statewide electors, which would go to whatever candidate wins the plurality in that state.
So, for instance, in Maine, Bush could win one Congressional district by 80%, and lose the other with 45%, and still win the state, getting the vote for his district, plus two for the state, with Kerry getting a vote for the district he won, thus Maine goes 3 for Bush, 1 for Kerry.
That would, nationwide, reduce the edge that the winner normally gets from the Electoral College (small wins nationwide result in big Electoral College wins, usually), thus making the results more in line with actual popular breakdown, while still providing extra weight to the states, which are and should remain the true vehicles of presidential election.
Why?? Neither you, nor anyone else in this forum, gives one good reason why the scenerio you described is truly “bad”. You seem to imply that the badness of such a possibility is self-evident, yet I see no rationale beyond “that’s the way it’s always been done, and hence it’s good”.
Anyhow, I think it highly unlikely that a candidate could carry 100% of the votes in California, plus NY and Chicago. As it is now, a Republican in MA may as well stay home and scratch his ass, I guess because he’s not voting for the President, his State is. Since Dems always get the State, (even if MA were 40% republican), what’s the use in voting? Really, we complain here bitterly when folks vent their frustration, and vow to boycott polls; we call them unpatriotic, asinine, and lazy for chosing to abstain. Yet to be a Republican in MA is essentially to abstain. Your presidential vote literally doesn’t count, and it hasn’t for as many elections as I can remember.
How on Earth is this “good”?
(PS - I am most certainly NOT a Republican…but fair’s fair.)
So now- in a State that a Candidate knows he is going to lose- he can also ognore that state, and spend most of his time, cash & efforts in the swing states. I don’t see how that’s any better.
Like I said- CA is going to vote Kerry. It woted Gore last time. GWB knows this, and is practically ignoring the most populous and wealthiest state in the Union- all the while buttfucking CA residents to bring a little cash to his corn state voters. How is that good, where the most populous and wealthiest state in the Union has no say in the Presidential elections? WITH the Electoral College, a Candidate just has to spend his time & effort on the “swing” states, ignoring those “in the bag” for either party. Which means Ohio is more important than California. :rolleyes: And like Loopydude mentioned- nobody is getting 100% of the vote- or even close to it- in the big states.
I’d have no problem with the Maine/Nebraska system. Fine by me.
Shayna- i am pretty sure that with Gore winning the popular elction, your missing 5 votes woudl go to him. I can’t get your spread sheet to work, but if you just do it by overall votes, Gore gets a plurality. Nader would send his votes to Gore after some serious armtwisting.
You’re the one asking about how two states passed their electoral apportionment laws. You have access to the same internet as everyone else. Go look it up instead of expecting others to do it for you.
The research has already been done on the constitutional portion of the question. Do struggle to keep up.
I’m continually amused by people who bitch about how the EC allows candidates to ignore “lock” states. As if state political affiliation never changes over time. Can anyone here say “Southern strategy”? How many southern states were Democratic for a century or more? How many of them are now?
Well, the person making the claim has to back it up. I don’t really care how those two states did it- just that however they did it- the legality hasn’t been successfully challenged. And i am sorry- no matter how good it sounds- no on eis making a good case for Constitutional law here on a MB. Hell- they have made “good cases” for the Income tax being Unconstititional. Unless you’re a Constitutional scholar, or you have practiced before SCOTUS- your LEGAL opinion- no matter what you say or cite- ain’t worth dick. There is too much case law, and stuff like this doesn’t hinge on what we think those words mean- it usually hinges on Case law and Legislative intent. And, what is odd is that with quite a bit of Googling around, I couldn’t find anyone who had doubts as to it’s Constitutionality. Most just thought it woudl mean that Kerry & GWB would ignore CO. Like they don’t already. :rolleyes:
And no- that research was not posted here.
Sure states do change over time. However, the current candidates aren’t acting like it. GWB is ignoring CA as much as he can, and shitting on our head, making us buy that gasohol crap so that the voters who DO count can make more money growing corn. :dubious:
If EC votes were apportioned as to how a Candidate did in each state (even by district) then each Candidate woudl be forced to pay attention to each state in proportion to how many votes it has. Why is that a bad thing?
Why are you having so much difficulty here twigging to the concept that what Piper and I are talking about is process?
Take a look back at the thread again. Piper stated his opinion that the proposed initiative is probably unconstitutional and, not even being from this country, backed up the opinion with some solid research. You then popped in and, backed by nothing except the wind whistling through your ears, blathered out your considered and ungrammatical opinion
Where is your research backing up your opinion? Where is your informed refutation of Piper’s research? Where is your refutation of the information I provided distinguishing the Colorado initiative from the Nebraska and Maine laws? Piper has backed up his claims. Back up yours or shove your head back up the ass you pulled it out of before you started posting here.
Have you by any chance had some sort of spectral analysis done on your head to determine just where on the density scale your head falls?
You have just provided a good reason why the Electoral College should be abolished entirely. Why should we have a system where a state’s electoral votes give a candidate incentive to pay special attention to that state during the campaign? (And remember, it applies during the campaign only.) Colorado has a greater population than Wyoming, therefore you have 7 representatives in the House and Wyoming has only one, therefore your influence on the national scene is greater than Wyoming’s to the exact proportion it should be – unless you factor in the Senate. If that’s not enough for you, start a campaign to abolish the Senate!