Colorado mulls proportional Electoral College Voting

[The Evil Genius]

I give this a thumbs up - the winner take all mentality of our electoral voting has become outdated, IMHO.

What say you?

Colo. Weighs Proportional Electoral Votes

DENVER - A plan to scrap the winner-take-all system of allocating electoral votes in Colorado is heading to the ballot in November.

If passed, Amendment 36 would make Colorado the first state to allocate electoral votes proportionately according to the popular vote, rather than giving a winner all of the state's electoral votes.

Secretary of State Donetta Davidson said Friday that supporters have gathered enough signatures to put the measure on the November ballot.

If the proposal had been in place four years ago, Democrat Al Gore (news - web sites) would have earned enough electoral votes to go to the White House.

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.

Republican Gov. Bill Owens and Republican State Party Chairman Ted Halaby have criticized the Colorado proposal, saying it would lessen the state's clout in presidential elections. They warn that candidates will ignore the state and its nine electoral votes if the measure passes.

Julie Brown, campaign director for the Make Your Vote Count effort that supports the measure, dismissed their concerns.

"It begs the question on which is more important — a two-hour presidential stop at a tarmac at Denver International Airport or true representation by the voters."

Katy Atkinson, a spokeswoman for the opposing Coloradans Against a Really Stupid Idea, promised to challenge the measure if it passes and it is applied in this year's presidential race.

The proposal's backers want it to take effect immediately, before Colorado's electoral votes are cast in December.

"They are ripe for a court challenge on this," Atkinson said. "If this is a close race like the one four years ago, we could be thrown into a situation where we are the Florida of 2004. We'd be the laughing stock of the country. All those Florida jokes would be applied to Colorado."

State Sen. Ron Tupa, D-Boulder, tried unsuccessfully in 2001 to change Colorado's electoral system. He said the new ballot initiative is a good idea.

"It will give voters the unique opportunity to reform an outdated electoral system that disenfranchises hundreds of thousands of Colorado voters," he said.

[jbooma]

interesting and something that should be looked at

however it would only work if all states were doing it, then someone wouldn't get all of NY, Cali, etc... so then your vote would count, I don't agree with only having 3 states doing and the other 47 not

[Funkyalligator]

This needs to be implimented in all states but even having just a few states doing it is important......it also means that there would be a chance that a third party candidate could have a chance....the first past the post approach really does screw the little guy....I applaud this move...

[Larry]

I love the proportional idea. Not just for Presidential elections, but for Congress, too.

My main reason for liking it is because it just plain sickens me to read stories about how the so-and-so party is trying to figure out where to draw the lines on this year's map to give themselves the maximun political advantage.

I also think proportional congressional voting would, if done here in Florida, just about guarantee the Libertariens a seat or two in Congress. (It's a lot easier for them to get 4% of Florida than to get 51% of three counties.

I also think a proportional system would eliminate the current phenomena where both parties simply abandon a district when it tilts beyond 56% one way or the other. Prediction: I notice that the two people making the absolutely insane boogyman predictions about this proposal are R's. I'm willing to bet that the reason they're opposed to it is, the state is presently about 60% Republican, and both parties have abandoned the state, and they don't want to have to vight for each EC vote.

[miragv]

i say we scrap the whole electoral college and just go by popular vote

[Henry]

I think it's a terrible idea.

[Funkyalligator]

It is an excellent idea that will allow the people a true voice in the government....the current two parties don't really care about the people....this way there might be away to push forward a true third party......

[gbear]

I love the idea. OF course it would dramatically change this election if implemented for this election. Personally, I'd still be happy if htey implemented it for all election across the US. For congressional, it would get rid of some of the gerrymandering of districts which is one of the things I blaim for gridlock and the two party system lock.

[Henry]

Ok Funky, say this election is as close as the last one. Say out of 105 million votes, one candidate 'wins' by 500,000. Do you all honestly think determining the winner will be EASIER than it was in 2000?

Instead of a few counties in one state scrambling to recount their votes, we'll have every county in the country doing it. The electoral college is in place for a reason.

Again, this is a terrible idea.

[gbear]

Henry,

We do state votes all the time, and as I read it we are still tlaking about doing it on a state by state basis. Two states already do this without problems. Even if you allow for some error in the voting procedure (and any plan better), it shouldn't be hard to get within a few thousand or so votes. That shouldn't alter the votes from many states. FL last time was incredible, but it's not the norm (and it's a problem now so it's not like making a new problem). Go to computerized voting and there should be fewer problems. The problem is hackers or systematic programing errors, but again these problems exist now so we're not making new problems.

[Thiebear]

I only think its a good idea if Everyone does it.

And the Electoral College then votes for the person THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO....

They currently dont have to.. or not vote at all..

[Funkyalligator]

I agree with you on that Thiebear...but I've never heard of any real problems with delegates voting the wrong way...

[Henry]

gbear, honsetly I'm not sure what you are saying exactly. But I do agree that Florida in 2000 was a fluke. And for states to now start changing voting procedure in response to a fluke is a big mistake, in my opinion.

My point is that there is always a scenerio out there in which a candidate will win based on questionable results. Changing the method of voting only changes that scenario. It doesn't eliminate it.

[Funkyalligator]

The current voting system favors a two party system to the exculsion of all others.....in order for the current political system to be changed...it needs to be challanged and the only way to do that is through the comprehensive development of an effective third party........having a proportional system is a step in the right direction....

[Henry]

I disagree. You don't think the Dems took notice when Nadir stole votes away from them? You don't think they want those votes back?

Besides, I don't see where it's been proven that the two party system is flawed. It's been the backbone of this country for over 200 years. When has the US ever been able to sustain a multi-party government? Sure some countries like Italy manage to set up governments run by legislatures with coalitions of 14 different parties loosely held together long enough to enact a law or two before collapsing, but is that REALLY a model we should be attempting to emulate here? I really hope not.

In my opinion this would be a step in the wrong direction.

[Henry]

I find this passage particularly scary:

Republican Gov. Bill Owens and Republican State Party Chairman Ted Halaby have criticized the Colorado proposal, saying it would lessen the state's clout in presidential elections. They warn that candidates will ignore the state and its nine electoral votes if the measure passes.

Julie Brown, campaign director for the Make Your Vote Count effort that supports the measure, dismissed their concerns.

"It begs the question on which is more important — a two-hour presidential stop at a tarmac at Denver International Airport or true representation by the voters."

To have someone as ignorant as Ms. Brown leading the charge of reform is a scary prospect indeed. The state's clout represents more than a two-hour visit from the President at election time.

It represents the ability of the state to maintain it's importance to the President, and the President's party during his tenure in office. Right now, the President ignores a state's issues at his own peril, for he (or his succesor) might lose that state in the next election. If this measure passes, there's no need to bother. He might lose a few votes, sure, but that's nothing compared to an entire block of votes offered by any number of other states.

Make no mistake, I voted for Gore last time around, but this issue goes beyond partisan politics. It about changing the way power has been transfered in this country for centuries, and it's being done in response to a highly unusual and unlikely to be ever repeated election. And it will strip states of their influence and potentially cause more headaches than it will solve come election time.

[Larry]

Originally posted by Henry

I disagree. You don't think the Dems took notice when Nadir stole votes away from them? You don't think they want those votes back?

You're correct, Henry, the parties have noticed that a third candidate can skew elections. (Not just Nader, but Wallace, for example.)

And, when they see results like that, then there is a rapid, cohesive, response by both major parties.

They ban third parties.

That's why there are so many laws preventing third parties from being on the ballot, or creating huge impairments to them. (Like, requiring them to chose their candidate a year before the election, and collect the signatures of 10% of the voters in an entire state.)

[Ancalagon the Black]

I would go for preferential voting over proportional representation (so that you rank your candidates in order, allowing you to vote for a third party without "throwing your vote away" or registering an effective vote for the party you loathe).

[Henry]

Originally posted by Larry

You're correct, Henry, the parties have noticed that a third candidate can skew elections. (Not just Nader, but Wallace, for example.)

And, when they see results like that, then there is a rapid, cohesive, response by both major parties.

They ban third parties.

That's why there are so many laws preventing third parties from being on the ballot, or creating huge impairments to them. (Like, requiring them to chose their candidate a year before the election, and collect the signatures of 10% of the voters in an entire state.)

Awww Larry, yer breakin my heart.

Do you honestly think those reformers in Colorado are the least bit concerned with the plight of the third party? Is this Colorado's solution to that grand conspiracy that's being carried out by both major parties?

I tend to think not. Seeing as the only reason given for this desire for change is that four years ago Al Gore would have won the Presidential election I have a feeling Julie Brown and her cohorts couldn't give a damn about single-issue/third-party representation. And as such I seriously doubt this is a sign that those evil Democrats/Republicans will be reducing that signature count requirement to 5% any time soon, and those poor Libertarians, Communists and Progressives will probably have to wait a little longer for justice.

[luckydevil]

I would go for preferential voting over proportional representation (so that you rank your candidates in order, allowing you to vote for a third party without "throwing your vote away" or registering an effective vote for the party you loathe).

Oh, you mean Instant Runoff Voting. Yeah, I would support that type of legislation.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by luckydevil

Oh, you mean Instant Runoff Voting. Yeah, I would support that type of legislation.

Yes. Here in Australia they call it preferential voting (and it's the system used to elect the government), but I have heard it referred to as IRV.

[luckydevil]

Yes. Here in Australia they call it preferential voting (and it's the system used to elect the government)

So how is it?

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by luckydevil

So how is it?

It actually works really well. And not incredibly infrequently, a Green or National gets into Parliament (and, occasionally, a One Nation member--but we don't talk about them :puke: ).

[88Comrade2000]

I like the idea- but you need it for all 50 states. That would force candidates to campaign in more areas. Also, it would give candidates at least some votes in a state that leans predominantly to one party.

The problem with a going to popular vote only is that only the cities would be paid attention too. The cities would dominate the lesser populated small towns and rural areas. I know democrats won't mind but what works well for urban areas doesn't for rural areas.

Doing this change for all 50 states; would make this more acurate reflection of the popular vote.

Will this happen nationwide- probably never.

[Larry]

Oh, Henry, (no that wasn't an attempt at a joke), I don't think proportional voting for the electoral college will help a third party one bit. Let's face it, if Colorado does this, the best a Nader could hope for is that now he'd get one electoral vote instead of none.

I think proportional voting for Congress would help third parties. (And, I could see a lot of other benefits, as well).

However, for the electoral college, I don't think it's guaranteed that a change like this would make the state less important.

Under the current all-or-nothing system, Presidential candidates pick a few states where the vote is 51-49 and they vight over them, and any state where the vote's 57-43 is only good for an occasional fundraiser (to raise money to spend in a "swing" state).

Under a proportional system, a state is always worth fighting over, because all a candidate needs to do is shift the vote a bit (no matter where it is, right now) to affect the election.

Right now, I'm willing to bet, both parties are pretty much ignoring, say, California. They've painted it blue, and that's about it. If the state were proportional, then both candidates would be in there, because for every 2% or so that they can shift the vote, they can get another elector.

(Although, I'd suspect that the states that would become more important, if they went proportional, are the big ones. If you're Kerry, and you want to pick up an elector today, it's likely easier to gain another 4% in Florida than to get 33% of Delaware.)