Isn't gonna happen this time, but interesting
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 01, 2024, 10:39:56 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  Isn't gonna happen this time, but interesting
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Isn't gonna happen this time, but interesting  (Read 1594 times)
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 15, 2004, 02:24:02 PM »

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

About time the states changed the EV process.

I hope the congressional method (district =1 ev) is the way they go.


Group pushes for vote switch

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.


Advertisement
 
Proponents say it would help avoid outcomes such as the 2000 election, when the popular vote-winner, Democrat Al Gore, lost the Electoral College vote count to Republican George W. Bush.

"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.

The U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures the power to choose the method of selecting presidential electors. Most states, including Colorado, have a winner-take-all system. Two states - Maine and Nebraska - have passed measures giving only two electoral votes to the overall winner of the state; the rest are awarded individually based on the winner of the popular vote in each of those states' congressional districts.

Klor de Alva's group picked Colorado to launch a proportional system because state case law broadly defines the state legislature to include citizens participating in a ballot referendum - thereby, in the proponents' view, fulfilling the U.S. Constitution's requirement. It helps, backers say, that it's far easier to float ballot issues here.

Another reason is the state's voter registration - 36 percent Republican, 30 percent Democratic and 32 percent independent. The slight GOP lean could mean a likely win for Bush under Colorado's current system of picking electors. But Democrat John Kerry could grab several of the state's nine electoral votes if the reform measure passes.

Republicans oppose the effort.

"They don't feel their candidate is going to be able to win it outright, and they just want whatever piece of the pie they can get on a pro-rata basis," Halaby said. "It's part and parcel of this plan by the Democrats to mislead the public and play games with the political process."

Ridder said Halaby "misses the heart of the matter, which is that the system needs some tweaking."

Ridder said Klor de Alva - who could not be reached for comment Monday - lives in California but serves as president of the Faculdade Pitagoras, a university in Brazil.

He formerly served as president of the University of Phoenix, which touts itself as the largest private, accredited university in the U.S.

Ridder and Mahoney would not disclose the names of the group's other contributors, who they said have been involved in several political issues, including the movement to legalize marijuana use for medical reasons.

Experts on all sides agree that the Electoral College is one of the least understood institutions in American politics. State Sen. Ron Tupa, D-Boulder, a high school government teacher, said ninth-graders, like many adults, have trouble accepting an electoral process that picked Bush in 2000 despite the fact that Gore won more votes.

"People can't understand why we have this kind of system that seems so outdated and hasn't been reformed in 200 years," said Tupa, who tried unsuccessfully in the 2001 legislature to change Colorado's electoral system.

Tupa supports the ballot initiative on grounds that it would be "more fair" and "put Colorado on the map for both political parties."

Critics counter that the measure would render Colorado irrelevant in a presidential campaign because of the state's narrow margins in voter registration. A close election could mean the winner takes only one more electoral vote than the loser.

"For the first state to do this unilaterally, we go way down in importance," said Dave Kopel, research director at the conservative Independence Institute in Golden. "Because there's not much to gain ... a candidate would be nuts to spend time in Colorado."
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2004, 02:51:42 PM »

I don't like states doing it this way.  If we are going to go to the CD method (which I prefere) then we should just pass a Consitutional Amendment.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2004, 02:53:18 PM »

And I'll be honest as to why I don't like it.  The only states who are considering it Colorado, North Carolina and other Republican states and it is mostly an effort by Democrats to split the Republican vote in those states.
Logged
elcorazon
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,402


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2004, 02:59:10 PM »

And I'll be honest as to why I don't like it.  The only states who are considering it Colorado, North Carolina and other Republican states and it is mostly an effort by Democrats to split the Republican vote in those states.

As a democrat, it doesn't excite me given the states considering it either.  Colorado is Republican today, but it could easily be Democrat  by 2008 (which is the first time this could have an impact).  NC is also turning to the left, although probably not for a bit longer than Colorado.  

Interesting that no one minds the coupld of states who go by Cong. district already, however.  Maybe it's because they tend to all go the same way, anyway.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2004, 03:00:24 PM »

I don't like states doing it this way.  If we are going to go to the CD method (which I prefere) then we should just pass a Consitutional Amendment.

Why not simply let the states decide, why does the Constitution need to be changed?
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2004, 03:07:54 PM »


I disagree, but I do hope Kerry rolls the dice and selects Edwards; because even with Edwards, Bush will do better in NC than he does nationally...NC will NOT decide this race.  Period.

Gov Richardson (NM) is a much stronger choice.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2004, 03:11:07 PM »

I don't like states doing it this way.  If we are going to go to the CD method (which I prefere) then we should just pass a Consitutional Amendment.

Why not simply let the states decide, why does the Constitution need to be changed?

Normally I would leave this decision to states rights, however, the idea of legislatures determining this thing makes me very uncomfortable, especially since, as I mentioned, these legislatures are in marginally Republican states in presidential elections that have Democratic state governments.  If a state can just change it's system willy-nilly, image what impact that could have on a close election.  Imagine the corrupting and partisan factors involved.  I don't like it.  Not one bit.  If is looks like sh**t... and it smells like sh**t... well then it is probably sh**t.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2004, 03:15:23 PM »


Normally I would leave this decision to states rights, however, the idea of legislatures determining this thing makes me very uncomfortable

I'm not willing to take away any state's Constitutional right simply on account of one or two states abusing the processs.  And you are forgetting that very few states would do this - there is a reason why 48 states chose the winner-take-all method.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2004, 03:19:53 PM »

I agree with Soulty on this one, it shouldn't be left up to the states. If states used the CD method, it would make gerrymandering even worse...there would be even more incentive to skew the Districts.

Though if every state switched to the Congressional District method, Republicans overall would be helped (Bush would have won 288-250 instead of 271-267 in 2000, if the CD method were used everywhere).
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2004, 03:20:39 PM »



I'm not willing to take away any state's Constitutional right simply on account of one or two states abusing the processs.  And you are forgetting that very few states would do this - there is a reason why 48 states chose the winner-take-all method.

Very few states would do it, that is my problem, it would start to become a political weapon in a few states where the legislature doesn't like the way people vote in the presidential election.

And jmf, you know what this sounds like...


I'm not willing to take away any state's Constitutional right simply on account of one or two states abusing the processs.

It sounds very similar to the arguments made by the copperheads against the Union in the 1850's and 60's.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2004, 03:26:49 PM »

I agree with Soulty on this one, it shouldn't be left up to the states. If states used the CD method, it would make gerrymandering even worse...there would be even more incentive to skew the Districts.

Though if every state switched to the Congressional District method, Republicans overall would be helped (Bush would have won 288-250 instead of 271-267 in 2000, if the CD method were used everywhere).

And you make a good point as well Nym.  Although I am in favor of the CD method Amendment, it would mean that two rights of the states would have to be sacraficed:

1) The right of the states to appropriat their EV's as they choose.

2) The right of states to set thier CD's however they want.  The federal courts would have to get tough on Gerrymandering.

These are two states' rights I am willing to subvert to better the political system.  
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2004, 03:27:36 PM »

I agree with Soulty on this one, it shouldn't be left up to the states.

Are you seriously telling me you don't believe that states should be able to determine the method of choosing their own electors?  Are you next going to tell me that states should be denied the right to have a republican form of government?  Did you expound on these views when you were running for President of this Forum?
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 15, 2004, 03:48:24 PM »


And jmf, you know what this sounds like...


I'm not willing to take away any state's Constitutional right simply on account of one or two states abusing the processs.

It sounds very similar to the arguments made by the copperheads against the Union in the 1850's and 60's.

How so?
Logged
agcatter
agcat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,740


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 15, 2004, 05:28:54 PM »

Where does it stop?  How about if Pennsylvania does it and Rebublicans lose the state but still get to keep 10 or 11 electoral votes?  You'd have a state by state free for all in legislatures all over the nation.  Pepublicans trying to get proportional representation for states they were going to lose and Dems doing the same thing in states like NC that they couldn't win.  

It's a backdoor attempt to stal the presidential election and that's all it is.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,460


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 16, 2004, 12:42:30 AM »

And I'll be honest as to why I don't like it.  The only states who are considering it Colorado, North Carolina and other Republican states and it is mostly an effort by Democrats to split the Republican vote in those states.

Well its being done in Maine a fairly safe Dem state, but has one district which could be considered a toss up (although more than likley won't be as close as it was in 2000)
Logged
agcatter
agcat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,740


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 16, 2004, 07:07:02 AM »

Maine and Nebraska are not state wide proportional.  They are winner take all at the congressional district.  Also, both systems were in place BEFORE the election cycle.  

The proposed "plan" in Colorado in no way passes the smell test.
Logged
zorkpolitics
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,188
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 17, 2004, 08:35:28 PM »

Perhaps this will start a trend.
Democrats control 3 states (Legislature and Governorshp) that last time voted for Bush: TN, OK, LA. But Republicnas do not control any states won by Gore. If the Democrats pushed for proportional EV in the above three states (+CO) Kerry could net about 15EV, which might be enough to give him a victory in a close race.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.23 seconds with 13 queries.