Electoral Vote Change in Colorado?

Group pushes for vote switch (June 15, '04)

Colo. would split presidential tally

By Susan Greene
Denver Post Staff Writer

The wealthy president of a Brazilian university is bankrolling an initiative to end Colorado's winner-take-all presidential electoral system.

J. Jorge Klor de Alva is the major donor to The People's Choice for President - a nonprofit group seeking voters' permission to award Colorado's Electoral College votes proportionally as a percentage of the statewide popular vote.

For example, a candidate who wins 60 percent at the polls could snag five of the state's nine electoral votes, leaving the remaining four to a candidate who wins 40 percent on Election Day.

The group has begun to collect signatures; it needs 67,799 to get the measure on the ballot.

If approved Nov. 2, the constitutional amendment would affect this year's choice for president by immediately permitting the division of Colorado electoral votes. And it would mark the most ambitious Electoral College reform yet in the nation.

Proponents say it would help avoid outcomes such as the 2000 election, when the popular vote-winner, Democrat Al Gore, lost the Electoral College

More....

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2213150,00.html

it will give a much clearer picture of the electorate

{oops, misread the article -- thought it was talking about primaries and not GE -- oh well, I'll leave this up anyway -- we should probably do this nationally, as well as take away the EVs each state gets for its two senators}

to do it in the primaries.

Ideally, you want the primary to deliver a nominee who will according to the rules played in the national election. So, to find out who that person is, you probably want to use the national rules to select your nominee.

If you give proportional votes at the primary stage, you might give an edge to a candidate who plays really well but doesn't win CA and NY, and wins a few, say, NE l states, but not all of them. So, what if you have a candiate who can win CA and NY and a different set of, say W and SE states, so that these methods create different primary winners?

Well, which one would you have wanted in the general election? Would you have wanted the one who won the primary according to the winner takes all method?

Any mathematicians out there have an opinion? Is it likely that this could happen?

Imagine republicans do this in California. Can you say 4 more years?

President Gore would occupy the White House now.

Bush would not have needed to steal Florida.

The only "what if" that makes sense is if they do this nationally. And that isn't likley.

Gore's clear dominance in the popular vote tells you who would have won. I like a hybrid of representational EV distribution while keeping the Senate EV's. It strikes a fairer balance, giving the popular vote a little more tilt while maintaining the voice of the states. However, I'd like it to extend down to any candidate that garner's 5,10 or 15+% of the vote.

From the article:

"What we are proposing to do, at least in Colorado, is to come much closer to the notion of one man, one vote," said Rick Ridder, the Denver-based Democratic political consultant running the campaign. Klor de Alva, who Ridder says is an American citizen, and a group of other unnamed donors have given $150,250 and pledged at least $150,000 more, to the campaign for Colorado electoral change.

Republicans decry the measure as a Democratic scheme to dilute GOP votes.

"I don't know if it verges on dirty tricks, but it certainly has a bad odor," said state Republican chairman Ted Halaby.
(snip/...)

Thanks, mefoolonhill!

I got $20 says they join together to fight it tooth and nail.
Money will flow to Colorado because of this one.

It will make it much harder to cut off candidates like Dean and
Edwards (or McCain and Perot if you prefer) and it will turn the
National Conventions into more than a put-lipstick-on-the-pig and
anoint-the-chosen-one media circus.

This is only for the general election, not the primaries. The awarding of delegates in the primary is set by party rules rather than state laws.

Or other third party candidates.
I'm just fantasizing about honest primaries.
Mea culpa.

IT would be very hard for any one candidate to win 270 votes. Since there would not be a majority, the election would be thrown to the house. Do we really want the house picking our President year after year (I know they technically do it now). I mean, it was bad enough when the Supreme Court did it.

Just my thought on the matter

Not trying to pick a fight, but how is that not better and more
honest than the bullshit we are being fed now? It's almost
Parliamentary.

People would see this getting decided by the house, election after election, so why vote in the first place.

I live in Texas, so my vote for President already means little, but at least with our current system, voters in 20 or so states actually have a voice.

My thought is, if we are going to change the EC voting system nation wide, they should just get rid of it all together and go to the popular vote with a clause saying that the person with the most votes wins (meaning they do not have to reach 50% like they do in the EC). This would make everyone's vote count.

The downside to this is if a recount was ever needed, it would need to be done nationwide. That would be a little difficult.

I would prefer getting rid of the EC too.
I think reform of the elections system, at whatever cost, would
be far cheaper than the screwing we are getting now.

The way it is now, if you are a dem in Kansas or Idaho or Alabama, or any number of places, you pretty much know that your vote will not matter a lot..

If the distribution was not "winner take all", it might encourage people to vote..

It would make who you elect for Congress more important too,
knowing he/she might be selecting the pResident.

There's more discussion of this issue over at Daily Kos-

http://www.dailykos.com/

The electoral college would be a lot like a leadership convention, where third-place candidates become kingmakers.

Science Fiction author, scientist and "futurist" David Brin recently recommended this solution:

...
And yet, what else can be done? Every four years we we hear calls to replace the Electoral College with plurality popular voting (the worst of all possible alternatives). But nothing happens. Nor will it soon, because one party -- the Republican -- benefits from the status quo.
 
So is the situation hopeless? Not really. It turns out that the Electoral College, per se, is not what distorts the system so badly. It is the winner-takes-all method of allocating each state's electors.
 
This tradition seems unfair on the face of it, effectively disenfranchising the dissenting minority in every state. It also guarantees that small discrepancies in a single state may have stunning repercussions nationwide, as we saw in 2000.
...

http://www.davidbrin.com/electoral.html

you have to be as underhanded as the Republicans now.

Personally, this is a step in the right direction towards proportional representation. It's absurd that winning a state by a single vote should give the winner ALL the electoral votes of a state. Maine and Nebraska already proportion their electors.

I think it's a great idea. Not only does it give a truer representation of the states vote for Democrats and Republicans, it gives third party voters a chance as well, which is something badly lacking in America.

which, although in many cases turns out to be "leagal" see Texas), it's still underhanded.

Suppose that the scenario mentioned where Colorado splits its nine electoral votes 5-4 comes to pass.

But the margin is so close, less than 1/2 of one percent, that a recount is in order. It could make the difference between 5-4 and 4-5.

If the election is as close as it was in 2000, imagine all 50 states or a significant number of them, all embroiled in a Florida-like controversy over the delivery of its votes. No one would have faith in the electoral system.

Another thought: Democrats currently count on large states such as California to deliver ALL their electoral votes to win presidential elections. If California split its 55 electoral votes, say 30-25 instead of 55-0, we'd really be screwed!

Shit, we might have to get rid of it. :-)

This could force recounts in multiple states since vote changes in any direction could change the outcome of an election by adding or subtracting electoral votes. In the last election Florida would not have been the only state asked to recount, but other states that were anywhere close to a percentage break.

Finally, do we really want to do away with the electoral college. The intention of the electoral college was to keep any one state from having too much power in the federal government.

by initiative if Colorado passes this. Then Republicans would win most Presidential elections. Other states that have the initiative process would also pass this but I doubt most State Legislators would.

If it is going to be based upon popular vote why have it at all? :shrug: I would suggest in this day and age of The USA as a complete country and the States as only entities within a contry there is no longer any need for such a policy. Let the people decide by popular vote. It makes no difference IMHO if someone wins by plurality or majority as long as it's the most votes for any given candidate wins.

The Electoral College may have made sense in the 1700's, but now this is one place where a Constitutional amendment is really needed. Times have changed.

no candidate could campaign or even be known nation wide. Consolidating votes made sense when transportation and computation technologies were lacking. It's largely been made irrelevant by party politics, so wht now get rtid of it. There have been several ariticles in Scientific American in the last few years with better systems. There has not been any perfect system found, but there are much better ones than the electoral college...

I just worked out the numbers.

Gore: 267
Bush: 262
Nader: 9

Any remotely significant third party challenge throws the election into the House of Representatives.

-MR

Most states would apportion their electoral votes based on which presidential candidate wins how many House districts in the state, which favors the Republicans since they win most House districts.

I heard in the 2000 election that less populated states (red states) got more electoral votes per person than more heavily populated blue states. If that's true it's BS. It already makes me mad that small states have two senators.

that go GOP. ;-)

Real reform will have to be national. What happens when some states divide their votes but others do not? For example, passing this in California, without doing so nationally, would greatly hurt Democratic candidates.

Apr. 18, 2004 – George W. Bush could carry the state of Colorado in the 2004 United States presidential election, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 49 per cent of respondents would vote for the Republican, a five per cent lead over prospective Democratic nominee John Kerry.
<snip>
http://www.cpod.ubc.ca/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=2475

I know it has some downsides, but I do believe it will bring more disenfranchised voters to the polls. I like proportionate representation. I was for repealing the EC after 2000 BUT after CA's Governor race America is NOT ready for direct vote. Shall I remind everyone that 45% of America still loves Bushit.