Colorado Dems! How should I vote on the Electoral College Amendment?

[joeybee12]

I'm split. I think the electoral college is a relic and should be tossed, but I also think Kerry just might take Colorado this time, and I want him to get all the votes. He really could, since the Secretary of State here is a WHORE, but an incompetent one, and she won't be able to help the Repukes steal the election here.

Also, I have a feeling the amendment will get tossed out by the courts anyway.

I'm going to early vote next week, so please help me shed some light on this. Thanks!!!!

[Walt Starr]

1. Vote YES!

The amendment process was started by Democrats. either way the election turns out, Kerry would take about haldf the electoral votes.

[rockymountaindem]

2. Yeah, vote for it.

That way we'll be a little closer to what we need to win. There are so many scenarios where it comes down to just two or three votes, so the addition of at least 4 votes from Colorado would be great.

We can always overturn it and revert to the winner-take-all system as Colorado becomes more solidly Democratic.

[sandnsea]

3. I'm worried about it

What if all the "enlightened" states change the Electoral College but none of the southern states do. I don't think we could win another election ever, could we?

[HFishbine]

Very good point.

This could certainly happen.

[forgethell]

4. You should vote on principle,

not the results of a single election. Suppose, though, that the amendment passes. Kerry wins Colorado and gets 5 votes, bush the other 4. so far, so good. Now, let's suppose that bush wins the electoral college anyway and is President for 4 years. 2008. A new election year. Very close, evenly divided electorate. Senator Clinton is poised to take the White House, but she loses those 4 votes and Jeb Bush is in office. Pleasant enough for you?

Everytime we do something to change the status quo, I not just talking politics here, we run the risk of the thing turning around and biting our ass off. It's called the "law of unintended consequences".

So examine the issue carefully and be prepared to take the consequences if your examination did not go far enough. Stick with principle. That way even if the results are not what you expected, you'll have done the right thing.

[politicat]

5. I think Kerry's going to take the state. I'm voting No.

Last time, my share of the electoral vote had to go to support the chimp, so this time, it needs to go the other way.

I don't like winner take all, but until the entire country goes proportional, it makes no sense for us to give up our in-play electoral votes. I can see the election being close and Kerry losing the electoral votes because we gave * 4 of the 9. I'm not willing to take that risk.

Pcat

[troublemaker]

10. No need to decide now

This is an argument against early absentee voting in CO, because you need the final state polls to make the most informed decision on the proposition.

[nostalgicaboutmyfutr]

6. I am still undecided....

if the campaign was stronger either way, the decidion would be easier...i would like to see this happen, but better to happen all over the US at the same time....

Can you imagine that some of the lesser parties would actually have a chance win some electoral votes??? I think that we cannot continue with a simple two party situation....


all that said, i SO don't want to have Bush in office for four more years if the election hinges on colorado....

besides...i am not sure that the measure will survive after the election if passed...

We all need to start a campaign to have split electoral voting in every state! Then the candidates would actually have to visit and pander to all states and districts.....and there would be better chance for 'other party' representation and candidates.

[benddem]

7. NO NO

a thousand times no. That could throw and election...especially this one. While I think the electoral college has its pros and cons...this ain't the way to fix it.

[troublemaker]

11. It could also win the election. We simply don't know yet.

[troublemaker]

8. Wait until the last Colorado polls. It's too soon to tell.

If Kerry has a CLEAR lead vote NO
If Bush has a CLEAR lead vote YES

If you can't tell who will win, vote your conscience.

[HFishbine]

9. VOTE NO

I've been playing around a lot with electoral college maps. It's hard to come up with a scenario where Kerry wins only by 4 votes from CO. It's much easier to come up with a scenario where Kerry wins with all 9 of CO's votes.

In other words, if CO goes Bush, 4 votes to Kerry don't help much. If CO goes Kerry, 9 votes help Kerry a lot.

------
This is a great interactive map to play around with different electoral college scenarios: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/election-test-fl,0,1851284.flash

[troublemaker]

13. Why on Earth would you even have an opinion at this point?

There are thousands of scenarios where 4 CO votes would be vital to Kerry and thousands where he would need all nine, and thousands where it all doesn't matter.

Either Bush or Kerry could have big leads in CO two weeks from now.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

17. Like this one

[HFishbine]

20. Okay, that's one

Next...

[HFishbine]

21. Because we were asked. (eom)

[Crunchy Frog]

12. I'm voting strategically,

yes if Kerry appears to be clearly ahead and no if it's even, or Bush is ahead.

I'm not absolutely sure about what sort of precedent something like this would set, whether it would be a good or a bad thing.

[Bok_Tukalo]

14. Emphatic Yes

The Electoral College is only exceeded by redistricting as the single greatest cancer on America's form of democracy. Anything that takes a bite out of that putrid, 18th Century, elitist piece of shit should be supported no matter what.

And to vacillate purely for transitory and short term possible (if THAT considering if Kerry takes Colorado, he's taking a few more reds as well) gain is appalling.

Unless, of course, you are a fan of the College, then vote no.

[demokatgurrl]

15. I have a question!!

Do you vote on that issue at the same time you vote for President, etc.?

Anyway, if it were me, I'd vote for the split. If Kerry is winning, he'll get most of the votes anyway. But I see what you mean. How close is it? If very close, I'd say vote to split them up. If he's kicking butt- well you could take a chance....

[donco6]

16. Got this from thismatters.org

The Electoral College

For over 200 years, the Electoral College has determined the leader of the free world; also know as The President of The United States of America.

There are a total of 538 electors in the United States. Depending on population, states are apportioned a certain number of electors. Colorado, for example, is apportioned 9 electoral votes (2 for the number of United States Senators and 7 for the number of Congress People). Click here to see the distribution of electoral votes in all states.

Most states in the country, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, have a “take all” system, meaning if a candidate receives the absolute majority they take all the electoral votes in that state. If you would like to learn more about how the Electoral College works, please click here.

Currently, there is a group in Colorado, Make Your Vote Count, working to reform the way electoral votes are distributed in the state. Make Your Vote Count is campaigning for Amendment 36 and if it passes electoral votes will be apportioned according to the popular vote. This will go into effect for this election. If Amendment 36 passes, Colorado will be the first state that apportions electoral votes representative to the popular vote.

Brief history…

When the Electoral College was established, over 200 years ago, there were only 13 colonies and a total population of about 4,000,000 (a little less than the current population of Colorado). The American Revolution gave freedom to a group of people that found English rule repressive. Therefore, Americans were disdainful of political parties and a centralized government.

So, the question our forefathers were faced with was “how to choose the President of the United States” considering these factors. The options that were discussed are as follows, 1) Congress chooses, 2) State Legislatures choose or 3) the popular vote determines. All three options were ruled out. If Congress were to choose it could have upset the balance of power and if State Legislatures chose Presidents may be beholden to the states. And the popular vote was ruled out because the thought was that the electorate would vote for the candidate from their state, giving larger states an advantage (considering the size of the country at the time).

At the Constitutional Convention it was decided to choose the President through a college of electors. The founders were well versed in history and modeled the Electoral College after the Roman Empire’s Centurial Assembly. The Centurial Assembly worked like this- only men, based on economic status, were broken into groups of 100 and each group had the equivalent of one elector.

The College of Electors was likened to the Centurial Assembly of the Roman Republic where adult male citizens of Rome were divided into groups of 100 who cast one vote in favor or against proposals of the Roman Republic. In the Electoral College system the states assume the role of a centurial group and the number of votes that they are entitled to depend on the size of the state’s Congressional delegation. Originally, the purpose of the College of Electors was to have the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each state of the Union cast their votes for the president assuming that they voted solely on the basis of merit.
www.votescount.com/books/elecoll.htm

Back to Amendment 36: Both the proponents and opponents of Amendment 36 have compelling arguments…

Proponents argue that the Electoral College suppresses voter turnout. Since the current system is “winner takes all” a candidate simply needs the absolute majority for all the electoral votes. Proponents would also argue that the Electoral College prevents third party candidates from participating in the process. In addition, they would argue that the constitution was intended to be a dynamic, not static, document. The constitution has changed a considerable amount since its inception, for example, women suffrage and human rights issues.

The opponents will argue that the Electoral College has been an effective means of electing presidents for over 200 years. It maintains the cohesiveness of the country and limits participation to two parties. And if the Electoral College were reformed to represent the popular vote, Presidential candidates will be less likely to visit the state. In addition, opponents are concerned that if other states follow Colorado's lead, it will be harder to get Democrats elected. The concern is that larger states, such as California and New York, with several electoral votes that traditionally go Democratic will now be split, diluting Democratic strongholds.

We just found this to be an interesting topic- if you have any comments or questions, please feel free to send us an e-mail.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

18. Vote for it. Proportional rep. helps us.

Think about this: Several hundred New Yorkers "ghettoized" in New York State could have been the difference in Florida, or New Hampshire, or.....

[Chef]

19. CO

Polls show support ebbing. Most iniatives need stronger positive polling to overcome the push against it that comes on election day. It probably won't pass anyway.

[joeybee12]

22. Thanks for all the responses--I'm reading all very closely....

....seems like a lot of you are as torn as I am!!!!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

23. I'm not torn at all

it depends on the demographics of CO districts. If there are just as many people in Denver and Boulder etc... who are likely Kerry voters then the chances are good we can grab all 9 votes. If those numbers of voters are obviously outnumbered by the rural supporters of Bush then go for the amendment.

Q: Is Denver more rural or urban? I believe it is more rural, and we are therefore peeling off EV's they normally would win.

[neoSattva]

24. I'm voting against it

both on principal and strategy:
On principal - the electoral system is based on the congressional balance between one person, one vote (the house) and each state has an equal say (the senate). Although not perfect, it does strike a balance. If we had a straight popular vote, candidates would tend to ignore the smaller states. Specifically in Colorado, with winner take all, it is worth Kerry's time to work to gain 9 electoral votes. If it was split, he probably wouldn't spend much time for one or two votes. That 'vote value' translates into how much Colorado's voice will factor into decisions made over the next 4 years. Smaller states do have legitimate issues that don't break through in the larger, more urban states. Imagine if we didn't have the senate to balance out Tom Delay's house.

On strategy - For this election it's too close to say whether Kerry or Bush would pick up a few ev's if it passes. Over the long term, if Colorado passes this amendment, chances are extremely high that similar amendments will be on ballots in California and other large states in the near future. It doesn't make sense to trade a few questionable ev's now for 20 or 30 in California next time around.

I've asked several supporters of the amendment to convince me otherwise, and haven't gotten any real answers. Mostly people say they haven't thought about these questions. It seems to be simply a reaction to 2000, which is understandable, but I don't think it's a good reaction.

[Bok_Tukalo]

25. Odd argument

<<If we had a straight popular vote, candidates would tend to ignore the smaller states.>>

Currently, a vast majority of this nation is ignored and only about 10-20 states get any attention. I find the argument that the elimination of the Electoral College would somehow concentrate the candidates' attention MORE than it already is absurd.

[neoSattva]

26. Don't be too sure

Do you really think that candidates would pay any attention to CO, NV, OR, IA, NM, and even AZ if they were worth only 1 or 2 ev's each? Combined they would be worth less than any one of them is now. If candidates don't have to pay attention to them, their attention will be focused elsewhere.

[Bok_Tukalo]

29. Not that I agree with your premise at all

But I'm unsure why you somehow think CO, NV, OR, IA, NM, and even AZ are more important than CA, TX, NY, GA, IL, and even MT.

You are letting 10 states, tops, decide instead of 50.

[neoSattva]

30. Let me clarify

It's not that the small states are taking all the attention now. That's still going to Ohio, Penn, Fla, etc. It's just that we would be off the screen altogether, if we split the ev's.

Besides, to change the constitution for political gain in one election is worse than the Texas redistricting fiasco. As Touchdown says below, the electoral system should be fixed, "but this is not the way to do it."

[Touchdown]

27. Vote NO!

On Kerry. Bush took my vote in 2000, since all 7 went to him. I want Kerry to take Colorado Springs, including that nutjob Dobson's!

On principle. Colorado has Never, in it's hundred years gotten this much attention. Kerry and Bush both have been here numerous times, when neither Gore or Bush visited Co in 2000 (that I can remember). Both Edwards and Cheney have visited too. We throw all that away when we split our votes. We will become irrelevant, just like Nebraska and Maine has.

I'm all for revoking the EC system, but this is not the way to do it.

[demwing]

28. VOTE NO

IF the conditions favor Kerry, the Repukes will challenge it and the SCOTUS will back them. If The conditions favor Bush, Kerry wil challenge and lose.

Either way, its a helluva thing to have happen after 2000's theft.

I want this election kept far away from the SCOTUS.