resurrectionsong

September 19, 2004

Not So Accurate

Colorado is considering an amendment that would split up its 9 electoral votes by percentage of popular vote--a system that would more closely represent the actual votes of the voters, but only in one state.

I hate this idea on a number of levels. It's being financed and pushed by people outside of the state who aren't trying to get the same system passed in their own states, it would make Colorado--already a state of marginal interest in the Presidential elections--completely useless to either candidate, and without the system being adopted in other states, the idea of a more accurate representation of the voters in any meaningful way, is dubious. If some of the sponsors were truly interested in a "fair" system, they would first target states like California.

That's no excuse for getting a story wrong, though. I was watching Denver's FoxNews affiliate and caught something that's been repeated a number of times and still isn't right. They said that, if the amendment passed, it would make Colorado the first state to not use a winner take all system for allotting electoral votes. This isn't true.

Only two other states do not have winner-take-all systems of casting electoral college votes. Nebraska and Maine give two votes to the winner of each state, and remaining votes are cast to show who won each congressional district.

That doesn't make this amendment any better, but it does pay to be accurate. The people who are questioning whether this will pass constitutional muster have to realize that the apportioning of the electoral votes isn't the simple issue that some people seem to think; there is nothing prohibiting a move away from a winner-take-all system of apportionment.

Read more about it.

Posted by zombyboy at September 19, 2004 09:38 PM

Comments

I don't think anyone is saying it is unconstitutional to divide up the electoral votes proportionally. There is a legitimate argument (albeit a wrong one, IMNSHO) that it is unconstitutional to make such change by voter initiative, as Article II, Sec. 1 provides that each state must choose its electors "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct." The real problem that I see, even though no one else seems to, is that by having Amendment 36 take effect immediately, it will potentially open Colorado's entire slate of electors to a challenge.

Posted by: Xrlq at September 19, 2004 10:16 PM

We should look at the amount of time canidates spend ni Nebraska and Maine before we decide to go down this road. I have never heard of anyone spending ANY time campaigning in those two states.

Posted by: Shad0runr at September 19, 2004 11:01 PM

Shad0runr, I agree about ME and NE being largely irrelevant but I don't know that their system - which is distinct from Amendment 36 - is to blame. They're small states to begin with, so now matter how their electoral votes are allocated, there's only so much incentive for candidates to focus their energy there.

In any event, the ME/NE system is considerably different from Amendment 36. By retaining the winner-take-all system at the congressional district level, all the states' electoral votes remain in play, at least to the extent that the districts themselves are drawn along reasonable lines. Gerrymandered districts designed to help hard right or hard left Congressmen will result in that district's EV being owned by one party or the other. However, districts that are not overly gerrymandered, or even some of the ones that are, but which are designed to keep a centrist Congressman in power, will each have an EV in play. Plus, no matter how badly the distrct lines are drawn up and down the state, at least ME and NE will always have those two statewide EVs. Note that despite having divisible electoral votes, neither state actually did divide its vote in 2000, with all 5 of Nebraska's votes going to Bush, and all 4 of Maine's to Gore.

Under Amendment 36, by contrast, there simply would be no way for any politician to capture all nine of Colorado's electoral votes. In a typical election, the number of electoral votes that would be in play lies somewhere between 0 and 1. Even under extreme circumstances, it's doubtful that more than 2 of your EVs would be legitimately in play.

Amendment 36 is a completely retarded idea. I wish California would pass it.

Posted by: Xrlq at September 20, 2004 01:12 PM

Vote NO.
Though there is every reason not to listen to me (being from Texas and invading your slopes much to your shagrin)I have to beg you to get out and vote NO on this proposed amendment!
There are two areas divised by our constitution that protect the states such as Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and others that don't have a large urban population against the rule of the metropolitan centers in the United States. These two footholds are in the US Senate, and in the Electoral College. If we are just one large state, it makes sense to either do away with the Electoral College altogether, or divide your vote (which might as well be doing away with it all together). But, we are not! We are a nation of individual states who have seperate group interests, and seperate group priorities. The bulk of the nation's populace is standing shoulder to shoulder in the major urban epicenters which would control everything without the Electoral College and the US Senate. We must hang on with everything we have to this cornerstone of state's rights and equal representation. The Electoral College must stay as it is in order for Colorado's cumulative voice to be heard.
-Super

Posted by: Superhero at October 29, 2004 10:24 AM