Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Colorado's Amendment 36 = Political Suicide?

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Colorado's Amendment 36 = Political Suicide? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/74586-colorados-amendment-36-political-suicide.html)

Colorado's Amendment 36 = Political Suicide?

Colorado's Amendment 36 will change their electoral voting from "winner-take-all" to a proportional voting system.

While I'm all for a more representative voting system, I've heard arguments that doing this will weaken Colorado's political power.

Here are some links to stuff I've read:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/10/24/74544/159

http://www.members.aol.com/lwvco/AMEND36.html

Someone care to comment on this?

I think it will weaken their political power. Why would any candidate in their right minds spend time campaigning in Colorado if the difference is only one electoral vote, seems that their time would be better spent elsewhere. Dumb move by politicians who fail to see long term.

Quote:

Originally Posted by theusername

I think they are just trying to avoid all of the obnoxious politica ads that "important" states get overflown with.

I think it would be great if other states followed Colorado's lead. It would make every state (approximately) equally important to campaign in. It'd also be great for 3rd parties; they could pick up some electoral votes.

Quote:

I think they are just trying to avoid all of the obnoxious politica ads that "important" states get overflown with.

And lose any reason for the elected President or incumbent to spend ANY time or money there while in office for them.

Florida has gotten LOTS of attention from Bush since the last election to make sure he wins the state again.

The sooner the US moves away from the electoral college system and implements a purely popular vote the better.

I'd almost call this a placebo remedy for the massive fraud which is the electoral college. But considering it is the only realistic chance of any short-term change to the electoral college, it should be encouraged.

I don't think it's a placebo, more of a workaround to get to representative elections. In order to get an amendment which would repeal the Electoral College, there needs to be 3/4 of the states support. In order to get 3/4 support, some of the smaller states need to be in on the repeal. Most small states wouldn't go for a repealment because the Electoral College gives them more power than if it was purely representational.

Actually, Maine and Nebraska already use the district system to divide their points. While in theory this might seem to weaken the state politically by making it a lower priority on the campaign trail, I would like to point out the states like Maine, Nebraska, and Colorado already get next to no attention as it is. Nebraska hasn't gone to a Democrat since LBJ and Colorado wouldn't have either without the exception of the first Clinton term. I honestly doubt that the more representative system would hurt any state that generally votes on party or the other and I even doubt that important swing states would suffer so long as a greater number of states followed suit so that a candidate had to fight for every single point he received rather than resting on his laurels once he was convinced that 55% of the likely voters in a state would vote for him.

Quote:

http://www.dogonvillage.com/Tidbits/...ralcollege.htm
Dumping the Electoral College Because of Bush Will Hurt Blacks and Latinos

Earl Ofari Hutchinson
website: www.natalliance.org
email: ehutchinson@natalliance.org
The clamor by Hillary Rodham Clinton, Jesse Jackson and others, mostly Democrats, to dump the Electoral College is disingenuous at best and dangerous at worst. In 1992 Rodham Clinton and Jackson did not shout that the Electoral College is unfair and thwarted the popular will by permitting the candidate who wins a minority of the popular vote to occupy the White House. That year, Rodham Clinton’s husband, Bill, won the presidency with a minority of the vote. In the same election, one out of five voters backed Reform Party presidential candidate Ross Perot. Yet he did not get a single electoral vote. Rodham Clinton and Jackson did not call that unfair. They inflame black and Latino voters by pounding on the point that the Electoral College gives too much power to mostly white, conservative farmers, ranchers, and live stock herders in sparsely populated states and too little power to those in racially diverse, densely populated states.

But scrapping the Electoral College because Rodham Clinton and Jackson are piqued over a potential Bush presidency will badly hurt blacks and Latinos. Gore’s edge over Bush in the popular vote was only marginally greater than Kennedy’s over Nixon in the still much disputed 1960 election. And Bush racked up a 30 to 19 margin over him in the number of states won. Still, the massive support Gore got from blacks and Latinos in California, New York, New Jersey Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia enabled him, without--at least for the moment--Florida, to top Bush in the electoral column.

Since electoral votes are ladled out to the states according to Census numbers, a presidential candidate need win only eleven of the most populous states to bag the presidency. This guarantees that black and Latino voters are major players in national politics. Clinton is a good example of this. In 1992 he relentlessly wooed black and Latino voters in California and it paid off. He won the state’s 54 electoral votes. This is one fifth of the total needed to win the White House. During his re-election campaign in 1996, he visited California thirty times and met frequently with black and Latino political leaders and groups. They again played the crucial role in delivering California to Clinton.

Gore and Bush, like Clinton, understood that it’s political suicide for a presidential candidate not to actively court black and Latino voters in the major electoral states. This election Republicans and Democrats pumped millions of dollars into ads in black and Latino newspapers and radio stations to tout Gore and Bush. The Republican National Convention presented their version of a diversity showcase in Pennsylvania in a naked attempt to convince blacks and Latinos that the Republicans champion inclusion. During the campaign Bush spent much of his time in California and Michigan visiting black schools and churches in Detroit and Los Angeles and mugging for photo-ops with Latino and black community leaders. In the Deep South states, long thought safe for the Republicans, Bush had to wage a furious campaign to beat back the effort posed by the legions of black Democratic voters and officeholders to pry loose one or two of these states from him for the Democrats.

Gore exhorted Latino and black ministers, athletes, entertainers, and politicians to prime his campaign in the key electoral states. He prevented a total Bush western blitz with his apparent razor thin win in New Mexico by courting the state’s growing numbers of Latino voters.

The magnitude of black and Latino votes in the must-win electoral states even blurred the political lines between Republicans and Democrats on some social issues. Gore pledged to end racial profiling, preserve affirmative action, boost health care for the uninsured, increase HIV/AIDS funding, back massive aid to failing inner-city public schools, and make racially-diverse appointments. Bush soft peddled his opposition to affirmative action, and support of school vouchers, talked about boosting education and health care spending, promoting immigration reform, making racially-diverse appointments. On the campaign trail he kept black Republicans Colin Powell, J.C. Watts and Condeleeza Rice virtually locked at his hip.

In 2004 the states will be reapportioned on 2000 census population estimates. California, New York, and Florida, with large and growing black and Latino populations, and the handful of other states that the Democrats bank on for their major support, will figure even bigger in their campaign plans. In the Deep South states that Bush won the number of black and Latino voters will also continue to rise. And their votes will translate out into more electoral votes. Democrats and Republicans will be forced to aggressively court, woo, and stroke black and Latino voters, and publicly support policy initiatives that benefit their communities. Thank the electoral college for that.

The Colorado amendment, if passed by every state, would have a strikingly similar effect. Thankfully, however, there are no indications that it will pass.

Hutchinson seems to neglect a few key factors in assuming the minority vote would be weakened by the district system. First, he seems to neglect the fact that in many districts blacks and/or latinos are the majority so their votes would still go towards points for their candidate. Second, he completely neglects the large number of minorities in smaller states throughout the country. In many metropolitan areas in the midwest blacks and latinos make up a significant (and sometimes majority) vote within their district, however their votes are overshadowed by the equal number of rural white voters throughout the rest of their state. These metropolitan "minorities" in states where the overall population is predominately white stand to gain greatly by a district system, this alone would probably offset the difference in lost votes in states like California and New York (which I think the author overestimates). Finally, and most importantly, has the author ever stopped to consider that the current system might over represent minorities in swing states at the expense of the majority or non-swing states? It seems clear to me that while it would be greatly beneficial for the democrats to be able to take entire states by courting a select few voters in certain key districts (and as a democrat I can appreciate that) it is at the expense of fairness within the electoral and democratic systems for minorities to hold the entire state's votes ransom in some backbone states, just as it is unfair for the majority to hold the entire state's votes ransom in other backbone states. In the end, I still assert that the harm of shifting from winner-take-all to a district system is minimal and, more importantly, that it is in the interest of basic fairness and democratic process for us to continually (and realistically) strive towards smaller and smaller units making up points to decide elections until it is one day possible for the popular vote to rule the day.

My main concern is the elimination of the electoral college or the shift toward using Colorado's proposed method of dividing votes. Neither of these options are good. Now, the idea of going by congressional district, the way Maine and Nebraska do it, is to me a valid option to discuss. However, something that is intrinsically necessary to doing this, especially on a national level, is putting an end to gerrymandering. If all states were to move towards Iowa's system of determining congressional districts, I would likely support dividing electoral votes the way in which Maine and Nebraska do it, based on the knowledge I currently have.

Splitting EV's is asinine. I'd rather do away with the EC instead of splitting votes.

I have a fundamental problem with any person or group that says dumping the electoral college in favor a popular vote is bad. To me that goes against the very heart of a representative democracy.

It also seems to me that groups who take this position do so not out of concerns of fairness, but because they will lose some political muscle that other groups lack.

Again, to me this is no different than laws that made black votes equivalent to 3/5 of a white vote (I think that's the right percentage).

Both are WRONG.

Let me clear up a little misconception from earlier in this thread:

Colorado got a lot of attention this year. More then I have ever seen.

Two reasons: 1) A new senate seat up for grabs (Nighthorse-Cambell did not seek re-election) and 2) Bush was not "ahead" in this state so it has been pretty close with numerous visits by both candidates, etc.

That being said, I live here and when I vote later today, it will be a resounding "NO" on 36.

I don't know if this is a bad idea (i.e. splitting electoral votes) but unless every state adopts the idea at the same time, I am flatly opposed. Also, they should either split the vote or not; I disagree with the "option" to split whether exercised or not.

The fact that this initiative isn't being presented in "Kerry" states tells me the true underlying reasons behind a proposal like this.

/correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that even the states that can split their vote, haven't.

oh yeah, I forgot to mention that they were pretty sneaky getting the signatures needed to get this on the ballot here in Colorado.

You had to grill the petitioners to really find out what the real proposal was; they did not say anything about it when asking people to sign the petition.

They didn't like being grilled either--it was fun to watch the reactions because they pulled this on other proposals here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I have a fundamental problem with any person or group that says dumping the electoral college in favor a popular vote is bad. To me that goes against the very heart of a representative democracy.

Keep in mind, Lebell, that this country is a union of states. To favor merely a country-wide popular-vote count is to go against the principles of the founders. I like Nebraska and Maine(?)'s system of proportional allocation of electoral votes, based on county.

A few things. First, I surely don't have any political muscle to preserve. *Points to third party avatar* ;) Now, the second point is that there is a reason we are a representative democracy as opposed to a democracy. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" This is a very good indicator as to what the founding fathers thought of democracy, and I think they were right. Urban political interests are distinctly different from rural political interests. A direct popular vote does not protect the representation of rural interests in any way whatsoever.

This all goes to the core of the matter: our government is not run as it was intended to be run. Currently, the federal government has many responsibilities - most of which are not afforded to it by the constitution. The United States is a Federal Republic, meaning that each state is essentially its own government, with a federal government for defense and a few national issues. We have a very well thought-out bicameral system of government which is very representative of the mindset in which our government was created. The House is based on population, hence it is the people's representation in the federal government. In the house, each congressperson is representing roughly 700,000 people, with a minimum of one congressperson per state. This is our direct voice in the federal government. The senate is the *state's* voice in the federal government. Hence, each state has 2 senators. This is representative of the interest in state's rights.

Now, our election system. We do not vote for president. We're not supposed to vote for president. Why does it matter now? Only because the federal government does not act in the way it was intended. The primary affecter of our lives is intended to be the state. Thus, the president is chosen not by the winner of a national election, but by the winner of MANY state elections. This is representative that the federal government is, primarily, the government of the states, along with having other side effects. Namely, that the voices of rural populations are protected.

There's a reason a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college would likely never pass. It would disenfranchise entire states of voters (minus their population centers). It also does not respect the ideals with which our government was created. The people hold the power in the states, and the states form the federal government. This works VERY well when the federal government is run as it is intended to be run.

Now, let's look at New Mexico. New Mexico, as one can see simply by its electoral votes, is relatively meaningless when it comes to population. If the president were chosen by direct popular vote, NO ATTENTION would be paid to New Mexico. What's interesting about New Mexico, however, is that it has the largest Hispanic population of any state (over 40%). Because of the electoral college, however, as we all know both campaigns have been paying close attention to New Mexico. Both campaigns have had to consider the position of Hispanics in balance with the position of the educational elite. All for those 5 crucial electoral votes. However, it is *only* 5. New Mexico does not hold an unreasonable amount of say in the election, relative to more populous states such as California. However their say is protected and they do have one.

Here's why I think I could support apportioning votes the way Maine does it, but only if gerrymandering were addressed by requiring all states to draw congressional districts in the way Iowa does so. Maine gives 2 electoral votes to the overall winner of the state, and then each congressional district has one vote. Apportioning electoral votes in this manner respects the concept that the federal government is a government of states AND the people, giving every 700,000 or so people in the state one electoral vote (mimicking the House) and the overall state 2 electoral votse (mimicking the Senate).

Secret, may I have your babies? :love:

Over the course of 230 years things change. The country isn't the same as it was back then. As times change, so must the role of the government.

I wish every state would do this. It would make our elections a lot more fair.

If the electoral college system is so superior why isn't it being implemented in Afghanistan? And I'm not sure about Iraq, but I doubt they have an electoral college system either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Here's why I think I could support apportioning votes the way Maine does it, but only if gerrymandering were addressed by requiring all states to draw congressional districts in the way Iowa does so.

Secret, I notice your caveat regarding Iowa. What exactly does Iowa do to address gerrymandering?

Iowa gives responsibility of drawing new district borders to an independant commission. I'm not up on all the exact details of how it works, but there are certain rules it must adhere to and it has worked quite well from my understanding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coppertop

If the electoral college system is so superior why isn't it being implemented in Afghanistan? And I'm not sure about Iraq, but I doubt they have an electoral college system either.

Um...neither of those countries are federal republics. As to why the current administration doesn't make them into one, there are two reasons: 1) with countries so small it's not really feasable and 2) (the real reason) neither Republicans nor Democrats these days are too fond of, or probably even understand, the concept of federal republics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Cynical, but probably true. :)

I think this is a great idea, on a philosophical or equitable basis, but it's probably true that it will weaken the state's "importance" as far as Presidential nominees are concerned.

Mr Mephisto

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Switzerland is quite a bit smaller and it has a federal system. :)

What's my point? Size doesn't matter when it comes to deciding on whether to adopt federalism or not. It's whether the country believes it's appropriate or not, based upon the political dynamics of that nation.

Mr Mephisto

yes. Hence my inclusion of the "real" reason :)

Hahaha...

Touche!

Mr Mephisto

FYI

Quote:

DENVER (AP) - Colorado voters rejected an initiative to immediately change the way the state's electoral votes are awarded to presidential candidates, a proposal critics feared could have thrown the national election results into the courts.

LINK