In my opinion, Colorado may be this year's Florida. I'm really surprised more people aren't talking about this... Colo. referendum could end up in court By Elizabeth Fulk While Democrats hope a proposed referendum on Colorado’s election ballot this year will aid Sen. John Kerry’s chances of winning some of the state’s nine electoral votes even if he fails to carry the state, it also has the potential of undermining his success. Referring to Amendment 36, a proposal to eliminate Colorado’s current winner-take-all Electoral College system and instead proportionally allocate the state’s electoral votes, Chris Ward, a senior analyst on Colorado’s Legislative Council, said, “Voters may not realize that the vote they cast in November could actually hurt their candidate.” Ward, whose organization is responsible for analyzing each amendment that appears on the November ballot, said that should the amendment pass and the presidential election come down to Colorado’s nine votes, Republicans could wage a legal battle arguing the referendum is both retroactive and unconstitutional. “The federal Constitution says state legislatures are responsible for deciding how to allocate votes and citizens can’t be the legislature. … Only elected members can make a change like this,” Ward explained. Declaring that it’s “very likely” President Bush will win Colorado again, as he did in 2000 when he defeated Al Gore by a 10-point margin, 51-41 percent, Mike Kanner, an instructor at the University of Colorado in Boulder, said, “This is a Democratic initiative. … It’s their only hope of getting elected in Colorado.” Proponents of the bill also hope it will make Colorado a greater factor in this year’s national election by forcing each presidential candidate to pour more resources into their state rather than viewing Colorado as a foregone conclusion for the Republicans. “The initiative provides an incentive for any group who previously felt their vote didn’t count to go to the polls this year,” said University of Colorado professor David Leblang. Currently all states except Maine and Nebraska follow a winner-take-all Electoral College system. Opponents of the amendment, including Republican Gov. Bill Owens, argue the change would lessen the significance of their state in the national political arena and essentially only make it worth one electoral vote. “This kind of initiative would make Colorado a purple state,” Leblang said. “The purpose of the Electoral College was to get candidates to go to small states, and this only forces them to go to battleground states and that is unfortunate.” http://www.thehill.com/news/092104/colorado.aspx Here is the relevnt part of the Constitution: Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct , a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress" What do you guys think the red text means? Do you think the legislature giving the voters initiative power is enough, or does in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct mean that they must direct it themselves?
Good question. It will be a seriously black day if the Supreme Court decides this election. I'm serious. Keep D&D Civil!!
They do go to small states. They go to small battleground states, ignoring small states (and big) not in the running. Below is a good article that illustrates the problem with focusing on small states. That is why I like what Colorado voters may do, but is it Constitutional? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/03/INGI190I5U1.DTL --------------------------------------------------------------------- Sunday, October 3, 2004 (SF Chronicle) WHY YOUR VOTE MATTERS LESS/West Virginia's voters are wooed while California's suffer snubbing Cynthia Bass Let me see if I understand this correctly. I thought that in a month, all of us would be electing the president of the United States, the most powerful person alive. Shows what I know. It's only the people of West Virginia who are going to choose the president. West Virginia? That anti-abortion, pro-coal, 95 percent white, anti-gun control state with one-twentieth the population of California? West Virginia is choosing the president? Seems to be the case, at least if you follow the Bush and Kerry campaigns. Bus tours, whistle- stops, ad blitzes -- all the stuff of hotly contested political campaigns, right in the little old Mountain State. (When was the last time a presidential bus tour rolled through Alameda County?) In all fairness, it's not only West Virginia. It's also Iowa, Missouri, Ohio and the 13 other so-called battleground states. These 17 states are where the real presidential election is taking place. The rest of us can just sit back and watch. We owe this strange state of affairs to that most peculiar of American political institutions, the Electoral College. That's why this is the time to start talking about getting rid of the Electoral College -- right now, while this crazy electoral process is front and center. Because if we don't talk about it now, the whole idea of "blue states," "red states" and "battleground states" will soon be regarded as the standard procedure for electing presidents, democracy be damned. What's most ironic about all this is that the original impulse behind the Electoral College was highly democratic. The Founding Fathers absolutely wanted presidential elections to reflect what Alexander Hamilton called "the sense of the people." However, they feared the possibility of pollution by -- gasp! -- partisan politics, as strong a force then as today. They also feared (in a pre-electronic age when a "current" newspaper meant one less than a month old) that voters would be unable to gather enough information about all the candidates. This would strongly incline them to vote for their "favorite sons," rather than choosing the most qualified person. The Electoral College was an extremely clever attempt to finesse both these fears. Rather than voting directly for candidates, voters would vote for electors, described by Hamilton as "a small number of persons selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass." The hope was that these electors would be selected because they were locally known as trustworthy, coolheaded men (they were always men) who would do their homework before voting and would vote for candidates who best served the nation as a whole, rather than merely regional or party interests. The result (ideally) would be an election that represented the will of the people yet avoided partisan preference and local loyalties. The question of how many electors each state was entitled to was determined by its number of congressmen, plus its two senators; electors were then chosen either by state legislatures or directly, by popular vote. In order to dodge the favorite- son problem, each elector was given two votes, one required to be for an out-of-state candidate. Then the electors would vote, and whoever won the most votes would be president. Whoever came in second would be vice president. This system of voting by electors entered the Constitution as Article 11 -- the article so often quoted (and misquoted) in Bush vs. Gore. It was a simple system based on idealism and trust. Yet perhaps it was too simple: It worked only for two elections. By 1796, the very men who had worried so much about partisan politics were busily engaged in them -- in a democracy, political parties just seem to pop up naturally. When the votes were counted, America had a Federalist president, John Adams, and an anti-Federalist vice president, Thomas Jefferson, who had opposed Adams on virtually all the important issues. This predicament had not been foreseen, and it ticked off everyone (Adams and Jefferson especially). Nobody wanted it to happen again. To avoid a repeat performance, in 1800, each party ran "tickets" that specified which presidential and vice presidential candidate the chosen elector should vote for. This, too, created a snafu: Electors gave Jefferson 73 votes, but they also gave his running mate, Aaron Burr, 73 votes, which according to Article 11, Section 3 sent the matter to the House of Representatives for sorting out. The House eventually settled on Jefferson due to intense lobbying by Hamilton, who was in the unpleasant position of not wanting either man: he opposed Jefferson's entire political philosophy, but regarded Burr as a dangerous weasel. The result of this election was twofold. The long-term result was the 12th Amendment, which makes voting for president and vice president two separate votes, not a package deal. The short-term result was Burr's unyielding enmity toward Hamilton, leading eventually to their duel and Hamilton's death. Over the next several national elections, the system settled itself down, becoming what is recognizably our current Electoral College. By 1836, almost all states chose electors by direct vote, not in state legislatures. At the same time, political parties, which were becoming stronger and stronger, began offering a slate of electors -- electors who were supposed to be (and almost always were) loyal to their party's nominee. Voters naturally voted for the electors representing their party. This created our current winner-take-all system. Today, most ballots don't list electors but instead list the presidential candidate, with the words "electors for" next to the name in tiny print. Whoever wins the most votes in any state receives his electors' pledged votes in the college election, held in December. One of the old arguments in favor of the Electoral College system was that, in the past, it would give a clear-cut majority of votes (in the college, that is) to candidates who didn't get a majority of popular votes, as happened, for instance, to Lincoln in 1860 or Clinton in 1992. But that argument went out the window in 2000. A second plus, much more important, is that the Electoral College system has traditionally forced candidates to look beyond a specific state, region or constituency and to campaign nationally. Historically, this served to moderate platforms. Candidates couldn't simply count on their popularity in one big state or with one large group to give them enough votes. They couldn't ride a single, perhaps extreme, position to the presidency. They needed to rein themselves in enough to have broad national appeal. And this is vital to a democracy. But this reining in of positions is no longer in play. New developments in political campaigns have badly undermined the single brightest, most positive aspect of the Electoral College. These days, thanks to recent developments in polling, candidates can focus on only a handful of states -- the battleground states such as West Virginia -- and pretty much write off the rest of the country. This is why nothing much is happening in California. Kerry and Co. think California is in the bag, and the Bushies agree. The result is that neither candidate has felt the least bit compelled to moderate his positions to appeal to this sure-thing "blue" state. California, the largest and most diverse state in the union, the world's sixth-largest economy, is off the board. The same can be said about the world's 11th largest economy, Texas, which is firmly in the Bush column. (Of course, both candidates come to these states to raise money and preach to the choir, but that's not the same as trying to change voters' minds.) What's so perverse is that this is what the Electoral College was specifically designed to prevent. Now candidates can concentrate their efforts and handcraft their positions to appeal to only a fraction of states, and not the entire country. And why should this trouble us? I'm not sure the people in these "battleground states" -- who may hold very different values from the rest of us -- should have that much say in presidential politics. In other words, I want Bush and Kerry to have to craft a message for all of us, not only West Virginia and the other undecided not-yet red, not-yet blue, states. The time is now, with politicians and pundits so strongly focused on only the battleground states, to begin a dialogue about the Electoral College. Clearly, what's going on now is not what the founding fathers had in mind. And if we don't do something about it, we're going to end up with totally undemocratic presidential campaigns, and with a president totally unrepresentative of the United States as a whole. The result of this will please almost none of us, and transform the ignored, discontented citizens of all 50 states into a true battleground.
It really wouldn't surprise me if the election ended up in court. You've already got Jimmy Carter posturing for it. The liberals' arrogance has reached a level so high that they simply can't accept losing a fair game. Instead, they sue. Even when they set the parameters for voting (see the largely Democratic controlled counties in Florida that they are still complaining (and lying) about), they can't accept defeat and they sue. Of course it undermines the entire democratic process, but that is of little concern to people as self-interested and cynical as the liberals. Al Gore did more damage to our democratic process than any figure since the days of the political machines.
Trader_J, that isn't fair. You've posted something of genuine comedic value. How can I ignore such a talent? Keep D&D Civil!!
serious: I've posted about CO before to talk about the highly unlikely but possible scenario in which a split electoral vote there could result in a tie. If that happens (and the change is upheld by the courts) the House chooses the president and the Senate chooses the VP. There's a slight chance the Senate could change hands in this election, which would mean a Bush/Edwards White House. The other wild thing about CO is that Kerry's running better than expected there. As your article mentioned, this referendum could pass because of Democratic support -- the same support that could deliver Colorado to him -- and cost Kerry the election by robbing him of a few needed electors.
If I'm not mistaken, the current (lame duck) House/ Senate, not the new one is who votes in the case of a tie. What I'm more afraid of is another opportunity for the Court to intervene. i.e., if it passes, and Bush would have won had it not passed, the Court will invalidate it, which seems to me would be very easy to do (see red text above). Unfortunately, I could also see it passing and making the difference for a Bush victory, in which case the Court could uphold it, which would be a lot harder. (Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas would have to uncharacteristically go against the plain language interpretation). Normally I would not think that they would make such an important constitutional decision in a partisan manner, but we all remember what happened last time. So while I support the initiative in theory, I think it opens up too much risk with the 5-4 Court we have today. I think it would be better to try it in the legislature again, where there would be no question as to constitutionality. At least that's what I think right now, at 1:20 am. It's been on my mind all day and I been flip flopping a bit...
I wondered about that too. I've read about the scenario in at least two places (one was Electoral Vote -- I can't remember the other) and they both set it up for the new Congress to vote, but they could be wrong. Are we at a 51-49 Senate now? Because if we are, I'd say Lincoln Chafee makes it 50-50 in this case. He's said he can't vote for Bush. Does that extend to Cheney? If so, a lame duck Senate vote's even better (if I'm right about the 51-49 - I really can't remember). In that scenario, Cheney would cast the vote to elect himself as VP. That'd make twice he hired himself for the job.
According to "A SHORT NOTE ON ELECTORAL COLLEGE MAJORITIES: Could There Be A Bush-Lieberman Administration?" (Craig J. Albert Associate Professor of Law Seton Hall University 2000) that too (current vs lame duck) seems to be up for grabs. From a footnote... "There is nothing in the Constitution that dictates whether the choice is made by the incoming Congress or the lame duck Congress. The choice is dictated by a statute which sets the date of ballot counting after the new Congress convenes. Congress could change that during the lame duck session, but the President would certainly veto it" Obviously "the current President" Albert speaks of is Clinton. With Bush, holding the veto power who knows. If, say, Repub.s kept the House but lost the Senate (and the election was a tie), I don't think it would even recieve all that much backlash if the lame duck Congress to move up the date so as to prevent a split ticket. If by a wild stretch, the Dem.s regained the House and the lame duck Congress tried to change the law at the last minute to keep bush, it would be much more troubling to me. But people would not be in the streets. The beat would go on. The media would talk about how foching great it is to have a stable democracy where someone can steal an election and people are not in the streets... http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/note1.pdf
I wouldn't think it was smart to divide your state's electoral votes unless all the states do it. What if every state divvied up their votes except for, say, California? Winning that one state's 50 votes (or whatever it is), will make up for small losing margins in a dozen other states. That's give that one state huge power. But, you'd have to make a change to the Constitution to force everyone to divide their votes. Obviously, that won't happen. I can see a short-term gain if you're on the losing side in your state. But, how do you get the thing passed when you're on the losing side? And, things may later swing in your favor and you've ended up crippling yourself.
It would be facinating if a state, like Texas, were allowed to divide itself into "regions," with electors selected by each individual area. Then you might see an area like Central Texas, more liberal than the rest of the state, selecting a slate of Democrats.
I agree that a constitutional amendment would be next to impossible without the possible exceptions of either a lame duck Congress changing the law to elect their boy or an elector switching his or her vote when it matters. That said, this was introduced in September: (Note that you do not need a majority to win). Every Vote Counts Amendment (Introduced in House) HJ 103 IH 108th CONGRESS 2d Session H. J. RES. 103 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct popular election of the President and Vice President of the United States. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES September 14, 2004 Mr. GREEN of Texas (for himself, Mr. BAIRD, and Mr. DELAHUNT) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct popular election of the President and Vice President of the United States. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the `Every Vote Counts Amendment'. SEC. 2. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. The following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification: `Article-- `SECTION 1. The President and Vice President shall be elected by the people of the several States and the district constituting the seat of government of the United States. `SECTION 2. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of Senators and Representatives in Congress from that State, except that the legislature of any State may prescribe less restrictive qualifications with respect to residence and Congress may establish uniform residence and age qualifications. `SECTION 3. The persons having the greatest number of votes for President and Vice President shall be elected. `SECTION 4. Each elector shall cast a single vote jointly applicable to President and Vice President. Names of candidates may not be joined unless they shall have consented thereto and no candidate may consent to the candidate's name being joined with that of more than one other person. `SECTION 5. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any candidate for President or Vice President before the day on which the President-elect or Vice President-elect has been chosen, and for the case of a tie in any election. `SECTION 6. This article shall apply with respect to any election for President and Vice President held after the expiration of the 1-year period which begins on the date of the ratification of this article.'.
Immeasurable damage may have been done to the American electoral process by both sides in the 2000 election. But man, those were the funniest SNL's in the history of ever.
