The Colorado Secretary of State recently approved for the November ballot an initiative that would change the way its presidential electors are appointed, from a “winner take all” system to an entirely proportional system. Basically, instead of all 9 electoral votes going to the popular vote winner, they would be awarded instead based on proportion. If polls in Colorado stay about where they are, this would give Bush 5 electoral votes compared to 4 for Kerry. Had Colorado used such a system in 2000, Gore would have won the election.
This differs from Maine and Nebraska in that those two states still give two of their electoral votes (the ones representing their U.S. Senate seats) to the overall winner. Not so in Colorado; they’d all be in the same pot. The initiative, were it to succeed, would take effect for this election, since electors don’t vote until December.
Now, Colorado is widely expected to give more support to Bush than Kerry, so the passage of the initiative can only be bad news for Bush. This is not disputed. But what I wonder about is, what are the odds that this will succeed? I mean, in theory, given the consequences of what this would do, all Bush voters would oppose it and all Kerry voters would support it, thus likely defeating it.
But of course, not all Bush voters and Kerry voters will make that connection. Or, maybe some will, but still, for high-minded reasons, vote for/against the initiative even if it has the effect of weakening their vote for president.
So, and I ask this especially to the Colorado Dopers out there, how much of a chance does this thing have? And, if y’all want to spin things off into a debate on the nature of the Electoral College, feel free.
I must correct myself on a minor point… in 2000, since Colorado had only 8 electoral votes then, giving 5 votes to Bush and 3 to Gore (which is what would have happened if Colorado did things proportionally in that election) would have resulted in neither candidate having a majority in the Electoral College, thus leading to a likely Bush victory.
But the main point of the OP is still relevant, despite that. Carry on.
As a Coloradan I think it’s too early to tell. My gut feeling is that is probably won’t pass, but it really hasn’t got out enough that everybody has heard of it. I havn’t heard any polls on what kind of support it has now.
The main thing in it’s favor is that Colorado has an independant/Maveric/spiteful streak. People here will sometimes vote for something simply because the East and west coasters don’t want it.* And I’m curious if a kind of related effect of "Yeah let’s do it that way, because nobody else does it that way and we don’t want to be like them.
I think that was a factor the reason the “Make my day law” and the “no special rights for gays law” passed so strongly. Not so much because people believed in the issue as strongly as it was voted, but more of a “Those damn New York and Californians are trying to change our state, so let’s tell them to fuck off!”
It’s too soon to tell really. I plan to vote against it, and I support Kerry. I would suspect it won’t pass, but as wolfman states, Coloradoans can be contrary sometimes.
There’s been some discussion of other issues regarding this amendment in a thread I started in the Pit.
Whether it will help Bush or Kerry isn’t - or shouldn’t really be - the point. The change will be enduring or, at least, troublesome to reverse.
Giving all the state’s electoral votes to the candidate who wins a plurality of the popular vote maximises the state’s influence in the electoral college, and so encourages candidates to woo the state, but at the expense of minimising the influence of those individual voters who prefer other candidates.
Conversely, distributing the electoral votes proportionately to the popular vote maximises the influence of the individual voter, but dilutes the influence of the state’s electoral vote.
It comes down to a philosophical question; should the right of the individual to an (as nearly as may be) equal voice in choosing the president be subordinated to the interests of the community as a whole?
Not nessesarily. GWB has pretty well conceded CA to Kerry, and since last election we have had just abotr 0 influence with the Bush administration. Even to him forcing us to buy that gasohol crap from those corn belts states that did vote for him. In other words- he is deliberately pissing off the most populous state in the union to secure his votes in the Corn belt.
He should win around 40someodd% here. If he campaigned like hell- he could get within 5 % of Kerry- which woudl be a LOT more votes than the corn belt states. But since CA is a write off, he will mostly ignore us- except to boost a few GOP hopefuls in local elections.
I’m not sure how likely this is to be enacted into law. Hopefully someone will feed us poll numbers as they become available. More information on the text of the referendum and Colorado electoral law would help too. It’s said the change would effect this election yet the referendum can’t be approved before the Electors are elected. I have to think a slate of Repub or Dem Electors chosen for their loyalty would vote for their party’s candidate even if state law directed them to do otherwise.
Lets clarify what type of reform Colorado is considering. They will be voting on a proportional system. The electoral votes are ( in effect ) divided according to how each candidate fared in the general election. Win more votes, control more electoral votes. This differs from Maine and Nebraska which use a district system. In those states one electoral vote goes to the most popular candidate in each congressional district and the remaining 2 go to the most popular candidate statewide.
I think a proportional system is more fair than the general ticket system ( or winner take all elections ) in that it more accurately represents the popular vote within a state but less fair than state legislatures deciding to assign their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most votes nationwide which, if enough states joined in, would be a popular vote. I consider the district system a harmless variation of the general ticket system in relatively homogenous states like Maine and Nebraska but it would further pervert the electoral process if extended to large and diverse states where gerrymandering is the norm.
Yes there has. Since I don’t post in the Pit I didn’t participate. I have to admit I was chomping at the bit. Now that you posted a link I hope you won’t mind me bringing your words over here for discussion.
It removes any extra incentive. Presidential candidates are already trying to win votes in the state by appealing not to people as Coloradans, Michiganders, Ohioans, and such but to the public as a whole. As Americans. And of course Coloradans, as Coloradans, are still represented in the House and Senate. That hardly equals a lack of influence on the national scene.
How do you mean that it demonstrates breadth of support? Just geographically or in some other way? How did Bush have more “breadth” in 2000 or Clinton more in 1992?
The problems of the Electoral College are not occurances of once or twice a century. They are endemic and effect every single vote and would be vote. The system makes us unequal in three basic ways. Within each state voters are unequal because usually all of a states electoral votes are delivered to a single candidate leaving the minority voters unrepresented in the College. The proposal in Colorado would change that. Between states voters are unequal because electoral votes aren’t assigned strictly according to population leaving the citizens in more popular states underrepresented in the College. Outside the states there is no vote at all. Americans living in Puerto Rico or the other insular territories have no say in who will lead their nation. Even if every state adopted the proportional system Colorado is considering these last 2 inequities would not be remedied.
I do. Or rather I think it a better option than entrusting the Oval Office to an opponent who was even less popular. But yes, lets do look at the worst case scenarios. Under the Electoral College there is no right to vote for president. The eleven most populous states, which between them control a majority of Electors, could all pass laws empowering a single person to name all of their Electors. A hundred million Americans in the other 39 states could be outvoted by Dan Quayle. Top that!
Of course, neither of those are going to happen. We have a 2 party system so both major candidates have significant support in every state.
I’m not sure that Coloradans will chase the short-term goal in the way the OP expects (i.e. Bush supporters against the amendment, Kerry supporters for it). I think any voter who can remember Colorado’s EC votes going to the “other” guy (for example, had the amendment been place in 1996, Colorado would have had a 4-4 split for Dole/Clinton, instead of giving Dole the big 8 and annoying almost half of the electorate) might seriously consider supporting the amendment.
I don’t mind, and it seems the OP won’t mind if this turns into an EC discussion, but I won’t be able to answer in detail till later. I’ve just walked into work, and the disasters are stacked up waiting for me.
Right now I’ll just say in general that you seem to believe this country should be changed from a republic to a democracy, and that I disagree. But we knew that, didn’t we?
America is already a democracy of a sort. It is also a republic. These are not contrasting terms so I would say instead I want to make it more democratic but not less republican. That is, I don’t seek a direct democracy just to put representation on a more equitable basis.
I just set up a little table to take the polling data available at www.electoral-vote.com and break them up if ALL states had proportional voting.
Note the power of the EVO (Electoral Vote: Other) category. Clearly it’s a much tighter race if EITHER candidate can’t count on a sweep. Kerry’s big edge by leading the polls in the larger states is offset by the fact that Bush’s lead in the smaller states tends to be much deeper.
The history of the last 20 or 30 years in Colorado regarding iniatitives is that we don’t pass them. We’ve been very badly burned by a couple of them. So we shy away from them now.
I also think that the the suggestion that it might help a Democrat will bring some some big money out to help defeat it.
Actually it appears that Kerry is newly competitive in Colorado. Check out electoral-vote.com again. People voting on the referendum for purely partisan reasons might be choosing between all of Colorado’s votes going to Kerry or splitting them between Kerry and Bush.
Just the point I was going to make. We are not currently in the days where haveing all your electoral votes go to one candidate does any good for you. The severe polarization within politics right now makes us not the prize we should be under that train of thought.
In the name of CA regaining the attention of the Executive Branch, I have previously proposed on this board that California elect one-fourth of its electors, by name (along with any stated party affiliation), each year in a popular vote, rather than have us vote for a full slate of unnamed entities for one or the other candidate as we do now.
This would then amount to the “annual referendum” on the president’s performance that I hear people occasionally pine for, and it would behoove the President to continually play nice with us out here, hoping to load the deck on his side come re-election time.
Of course, the drawback each year would be that you’d have a whole host of names on the ballot with the caveat to “Vote for no more than 13”, which smacks of the recall election. but then again, that WAS sort of a fun time.
Why, it could even bring attention to the electoral college for once. Hell, for replacement governor we had Arnold, Gary Coleman, and Gallagher. Can you imagine how much of Hollywood would run for Elector? I picture Joan Rivers standing outside of wherever the Electors meet, asking the less-glam members of the California College who made the various tweed suits they are wearing.
The reason the names of the candidates for Elector are so often left off the ballot is because people aren’t voting for them because of who they are. They are voting for them because they are pledged to a particular presidential candidate. Your plan, by doing away with the nonentities, would seem to result in not a referendum on the president but on the prospective Electors themselves. The current president might not even be running in the next election and there is no set opposition candidate yet either so Electors couldn’t be constrained to vote for any particular candidate.
Your idea would seem to produce a group of people who would decide on behalf of all Californians who would make the best president. Americans haven’t tolerated that kind of nonsense since the Civil War.
It looks like This Year’s Model isn’t going to reply. Perhaps I helped him see the error of his ways. Discussion has halted in the Pit as well which is a good thing. Posters were making all the usual mistakes.
The Colorado initiative is clearly unconstitutional. Article II specifies that each state shall appoint its electors “in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct”. This power is not subject to initiative.
Any attempt to change the manner of this year’s election would be doubly illegal. By federal law Colorado must choose its electors on November 2; the fact the nine individuals selected won’t perform their duties until December is irrelevant.
They’ve tolerated decisions being made for them by a much, much smaller body since the late 18th Century. It’s called Congress, you might have heard of it. The Electoral College is simply another representative body, and it’s high time it started acting like one.
It’s going to be hard to make me see the error of my ways when I’m not in error. My first reply was lost to a DSL crash, then life interrupted and I completely forgot about this thread. Sorry. I’ve snipped some of your post below.
This is true, and is one of the reasons I expect this to be in court the next day if it passes. Many people do not understand that they are not voting for a presidential candidate, they are voting for an elector.
You’re displaying a bit of naivete here. “All politics are local.” Yes, a president’s foreign policy, etc. will have some affect on a voter’s attitude, but the majority of voters will be strongly influenced by a “what have you done for me lately?” type of attitude.
Geographically, of course. The college was specifically designed so that an overwhelming majority of the vote in a limited number of states would not carry the day. One must also demonstrate a breadth of appeal. In 2000, Bush won 30 states, Gore won 20 (and D.C.). All Gore had to do was take 21 states and he would have won. He didn’t; he lost. I’m not going to get bent out of shape about the fact that the Electoral College worked exactly as designed.
I’m unrepresented every time I cast a losing vote. I’m not represented by Gov. Owens - I didn’t vote for him. I’m not represented by Senators Cambell or Allard - I didn’t vote for them. That’s just a simplistic argurment that doesn’t fly if you really think about it.
As above, by design. As above, to prevent an area with a high population from overwhelming other areas of the country.
This is not a big deal, in my opinion. Amendment 23 was passed because it was felt to be fundamentally unfair that D.C. voters could not vote for President. Had it been felt to be unfair that citizens of territories could not vote, they would have been included. Puerto Rico, in particular, could become a state any time they want to. They don’t, so my sympathy is limited.
You think the legislatures will give up their power to name electors to anyone but the voters?
The Electoral College helps to reinforce a two party system, which helps to maintain stability in our politics and government. To fully implement a completely democratic form of government would require vast and sweeping changes, the results of which cannot be fully forseen. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I don’t believe it’s broke.
I’m on day two without a cigarette; I hope I didn’t come across too cranky.
As far as Colorado attitude about this: I’ve not seen any polls on this yet, nor am I getting much of a sense of feeling about it from talking to people. It doesn’t seem to really be on the radar yet. The media types are falling in pretty much by party lines, Republicans against, Democrats for, though I have noticed more Dems against than Repubs for.
