Colorado's Amendment 36

[Solecismic]

Primarily a discussion of Amendment 36. But expandable to the whole electoral college debate...


Situation: A Brazilian (with California ties) millionaire is spending a ton of money supporting Amendment 36 in Colorado.

If passed, Colorado's legislature would be required to split Colorado's 9 electoral votes based on the popular vote. So, if Bush wins Colorado, 53-47, Bush would get 5 electoral votes and Kerry 4.

Currently, like 48 other states, Colorado gives all 9 electoral votes to the winner of the contest. Maine and Nebraska give one electoral vote to each congressional district, and the other two to the overall popular vote winner.

In practice, neither state has ever split its votes, though Maine is sometimes close to giving one away. Bush actually has a chance in Maine, but it's likely that if that happens, he'd be doing well enough in the rest of the country that he wouldn't be close to needing it.

Right now, Amendment 36 leads in the polls. There is heavy opposition among politicians, particularly from the Republican governor. Democrats are split, and the senate candidate Salazar (perhaps the leading Democrat in the state right now) is avoiding this issue as best he can.

So, to those of you living in Colorado. What do you think?


Possible effects:

A) 2004 Election

The polls generally have Bush ahead, averaging about 5 points. But the latest poll shows it's tied.

1) Democrats - The general feeling is that initial support for Amendment 36 comes from Democrats who want to "steal" 4 electoral votes. Bush won Colorado handily in 2000, and it's possible that they are simply assuming that Kerry can't win there.

2) Republicans - They're running ads against the Amendment. The most recent ad even suggests to Democrats that Kerry could win Colorado. Maybe a stupid move, because you don't want to encourage your opponent. But that's how confident they are that Bush will carry Colorado. I don't see it as a terrible risk, because if Bush loses Colorado outright, he isn't going to be winning Ohio, Florida or Wisconsin anyway.

Result: If Bush manages to come back just a tad, scenarios exist where Amendment 36 decides the election for Kerry. If so, there is absolutely no doubt that the courts will have to decide the legality of this amendment. If you thought Florida 2000 was a mess...


B) Future Elections

All of a sudden, Colorado is reduced to one electoral vote. Instead of the winning candidate receiving nine, he or she receives five and the opponent gets four. Colorado is fairly evenly divided, so candidates will still be interested in that one electoral vote. It's not like Utah, where the Republican only has to get on the ballot to win the state. But it would reduce Colorado to a status somewhere below Maine in terms of importance.

Supporters argue that every state should do it this way. And then every state will be important, based on total population.

But only a closely divided like Colorado could pass this amendment. That rules out more than half the states. This is an unusual situation in 2004 in which a closely divided state is set up perfectly to make a difference with a move like this. In 2008, there may be similar scenaria (like Pennsylvania and the Republicans), but by then this would have become such a partisan issue that no one would be fooled by the populism rants ("every vote should count").

Small states that go heavily for one side (generally the rule) would never pass it. Why give the minority a chance? Why risk diluting their impact.

Larger states might find it more appealing. Especially among the people on the losing side. The Brazillian millionaire didn't try this in California, though, because he's a Kerry supporter. Why risk it? Kerry's going to win California unless the election is a complete blowout.

In states like California, Texas and New York, the majority is risking losing a significant number of electoral votes. No populism claims will work on the majority - they want that state to remain on their side.


Supporters then argue for a Constituational Amendment.

Amendments, however, require 37 states for passage. The small, partisan states easily number enough to quash it.


Finally:

If Colorado passes it in the house, they're pretty much alone in their reduction to one electoral vote. I could see an argument that this should be decided by congressional district (like Maine and Nebraska), so there's still value in campaigning in the state. But this current proposal all but kills Colorado's impact on future races. The Brazilian got greedy and wanted four electoral votes rather than the one or two he could expect from that plan.

Oh, and I've already said the next game isn't politics-related. So no hijacking, please.

[SackAttack]

I don't live in [EDIT] Colorado, so pardon my Monday morning quarterbacking here, but regardless of which party were in favor in Colorado, I think the Amendment is a fairly horrible idea.

As you mentioned, it has the net effect of drastically reducing the importance of the state. It's helpful to the political parties, because they know they can expect electral votes out of the state, but I don't see where it benefits Colorado any (except perhaps in a reduction in political ads every four years. Why concentrate in the state if you can expect no better than half of the state's electoral votes?).

[sooner333]

I've heard of a similar proposal in Oklahoma (actually, I hadn't until I read about my local candidate's forum for state house and senate where the question came up, and really only one person had an opinion and said basically what you said...too bad he's running on the move OU/Texas to home-and-home platform). I basically agree with you that this is really a raw deal for Colorado because no matter what it will reduce the impact of it. However, for a state like Oklahoma, it could make sense because people woudl come here fighting for the additional electoral vote (Bush leads 66-33).

But regardless of whether it makes sense or not for a state, I would vote against such issue only because it would open pandora's box. Think about every state with a democratic majority in the state house and senate that is a bush state (like Oklahoma), or visa versa. They would constantly be trying to get their candidate the most possible electoral votes by changing the state law. Of course, this is perfectly legal within the United States Constitution, but I don't think it needs to be done. Also, it would basically make every state who enacted it a one or two vote state, driving down its importance unless it is a blowout state. In fact, one could argue that if they made every state go by popular vote and splitting to votes that were close and every state that was a blowout was all for the winner...then it wouldn't really work to go anywhere as a candidate.

[Vegas Vic]

In my opinion, splitting the state's electoral votes on a proportional popular vote basis would be a bad thing, usurping the founding fathers' wisdom of establishing the electoral college.

However, splitting the electoral votes by congressional districts is something that I would be in favor of. It wouldn't be a "winner take all" state by state matchup, and it would force both candidates to compete for individual districts in states that they currenly don't campaign in.

[JeeberD]

Coloradans are all wacked inside the head (and this includes my parents)...

[sooner333]

However, splitting the electoral votes by congressional districts is something that I would be in favor of. It wouldn't be a "winner take all" state by state matchup, and it would force both candidates to compete for individual districts in states that they currenly don't campaign in.

Of course, if this happened, Bush would run away with the election. If Republican districts voted for republicans, and likewise for the democrats, and then each state that voted for Bush got 2 votes and each for Kerry got 2, then Bush would win by a lot more than he probably will now. Bush will win more states than Kerry and there are more Republican congressional districts.

[Klinglerware]

Splitting electoral votes according to congressional district voting could have the effect of having even more of the voting population ignored by the presidential candidates. Congressional district boundaries are so heavily gerrymandered, the vast majority of house elections are not even close. I think that carries over to presidential voting--Nevada comes to mind at the moment, since the race there has gotten close. Nevada might be close overall, but voting patterns by CD probably aren't: Democratic-leaning Vegas versus the heavily Republican rest of the state. There is some incentive for the candidates to campaign in Nevada under winner-take-all, since the race is so close. But if the electoral votes were apportioned by who won each CD, and the elections in the district were a foregone conclusion, why bother doing anything in the state? The caveat of course is that 100 electoral votes (plus states with one at large CD) would still be in play via winner-take-all.

[Solecismic]

That's just it. Through gerrymandering and through simple demographics, a majority of congressional districts simply aren't in play.

There's a district in North Carolina that originally snaked from Durham to Charlotte (now Winston-Salem to Charlotte), grabbing towns here and there, originally intended to ensure that an African American would be in Congress. The Republicans supported it because it makes it much easier to pick up overall Congress seats elsewhere. The Supreme Court says that's okay, because they say it's a coincidence that black people overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

So gerrymandering is the rule every time redistricting is required (every 10 years in many larger states).

The net result would be even more bizarre campaigning, which huge sections of the country ignored. At least it would effectively eliminate the power of the polls. But it would ensure that every redistricting battle go through extensive court challenges.

I think (and I hope) that we're stuck with the current electoral college, without significant changes. But if Colorado wants to render itself impotent in national discussion, more power to them.

[Glengoyne]

I wouldn't be opposed to an amendment mandating this, but only if Gerrymandering is removed from the equation. The problem is that no one has come up with a plausible way to do that. Even the states that use judges to do it, just end up with judges playing politics instead of politicians.

[cartman]

And Texas is a prime example of gerrymandering run amok. That is what led to the reps going to Oklahoma and New Mexico to avoid voting for the measure, and having Tom DeLay calling in the Dept. of Homeland Security and the FAA to hunt them down.

I think there should be some sort of sane way to break the districts up both based on geography and population. How the people have voted in the past should have ZERO bearing on the borders of the district.

[Solecismic]

How do you avoid gerrymandering? With today's sophisticated computers, there's no way to propose anything without it being instantly analyzed and politicized. That's the nature of the beast.

Gerrymandering is part of our political culture. The only reason it doesn't hurt too much is that there are pros and cons. Add the presidential elections into the mix and it would get ugly fast.

[cartman]

I think that if computers are used to create the districts, then voting history should have ZERO input into the formula. Then it would be simply (loose use of the term) an algorithm that takes the area of the state, population densities, and spits out several options for lawmakers to consider. The algorithm should try to keep the borders rendered as symmetrical as possible, so you avoid things like the newly created district in Texas which is something like 10 miles wide, and stretches from Dallas to Houston.

[SunDancer]

Primarily a discussion of Amendment 36. But expandable to the whole electoral college debate...


Situation: A Brazilian (with California ties) millionaire is spending a ton of money supporting Amendment 36 in Colorado.



Why would a Brazilian with not even Colordao ties care?

[SackAttack]

Because he supports Kerry, and Colorado is a closely-divided enough state that Kerry can pick up a few 'free' electoral votes if the Amendment passes.

If that had been the case in 2000, Gore would've won, even with the Florida fiasco, and lots of people think this election may be just as close when the dust settles.

[cartman]

Why would a Brazilian with not even Colordao ties care?

That is a good question. You'd think California liberals would want to keep their electoral votes in one block, because for the forseeable future, they will go to Democrats.

or maybe this guy has conservative leanings, and this is the battleground he picked to start with.

[cartman]

If that had been the case in 2000, Gore would've won, even with the Florida fiasco, and lots of people think this election may be just as close when the dust settles.

Yep, I saw an article today that mirrored those thoughts. It raised the spectre of a Bush/Edwards administration. If the electoral college ties, then the House votes for the President, and the Senate votes for the Vice-President. Now wouldn't THAT be an interesting scenario. We'd go from a Vice President with enormous influence in the Oval Office, to a VP that would essential be left out in the cold, with the same sitting President.

Oh, and dola :)

edited to add the dola

[SunDancer]

That is a good question. You'd think California liberals would want to keep their electoral votes in one block, because for the forseeable future, they will go to Democrats.

or maybe this guy has conservative leanings, and this is the battleground he picked to start with.

Yeah, but is this person actually Brazilian (a citizen and live in)? Does he even have citizenship in the US to vote?

[SackAttack]

Doesn't matter if he can vote or not, he has the same protections on political speech as anybody else. He just can't cast a vote for the Amendment, or run for office, if he's not a citizen.

[SunDancer]

Doesn't matter if he can vote or not, he has the same protections on political speech as anybody else. He just can't cast a vote for the Amendment, or run for office, if he's not a citizen.

I know, but does he live in the states?

[SackAttack]

Yep, I saw an article today that mirrored those thoughts. It raised the spectre of a Bush/Edwards administration. If the electoral college ties, then the House votes for the President, and the Senate votes for the Vice-President. Now wouldn't THAT be an interesting scenario. We'd go from a Vice President with enormous influence in the Oval Office, to a VP that would essential be left out in the cold, with the same sitting President.

Oh, and dola :)

edited to add the dola

Here's an interesting thought. If we wind up with a Bush/Edwards administration, and the country does really well under that administration the next four years, does that make Edwards and the Democrats the incumbent favorites to win the White House in 2008?

For that matter, would the Democratic Senate vote Edwards in as VP if Hillary wants to run for President in '08? It would mean a tiebreaking vote in the Senate, but it would make for some interesting infighting leading up to the '08 Democratic nomination, if Edwards campaigned as the incumbent.

[RPI-Fan]

In my opinion, splitting the state's electoral votes on a proportional popular vote basis would be a bad thing, usurping the founding fathers' wisdom of establishing the electoral college.

"Wisdom"????????????????????????

The electoral college was created so Congress would decide the election every time around. With the rapid advancement of communications and (the related) partisan split, that didn't happen of course.

But the founding fathers didn't do the electoral college because it is some higher form of democracy or anything.

[SackAttack]

I know, but does he live in the states?

I think he'd almost have to. Otherwise the courts would have struck it down because of undue foreign influence (it is illegal, IIRC, for a non-resident foreign national to contribute to political campaigns).

[SackAttack]

But the founding fathers didn't do the electoral college because it is some higher form of democracy or anything.

They set up the Electoral College and provided for the indirect election of Senators because they feared the unwashed, uneducated masses, and feared the effect of "mob rule" if the illiterate and ignorant had a direct influence over national policy.

Can't say as I disagree with them.

[Vegas Vic]

Splitting electoral votes according to congressional district voting could have the effect of having even more of the voting population ignored by the presidential candidates.

I disagree.

There are some competitive districts in the smaller states that are currenly ignored because of the "winner take all" system.

You could see Kerry campaigning in Nebraska and Oklahoma, and Bush campaigning in Massachusetts and Maryland. Currently, these states are written off by the candidates.

[SackAttack]

But Vic, that might work on limited scales, if only one or two states did that, but if all 50 states made that kind of a move, it would completely skew the balance of power as far as Presidential politics go. Take another real good look at the 2000 map. While Colorado having a split electoral system would have given Gore the 2000 election, if the entire nation had used such a system, the election wouldn't even have been close.

[Buzzbee]

"Amendments, however, require 37 states for passage. The small, partisan states easily number enough to quash it."

Jim - Just curious. If a Consitutional amendment were passed, wouldn't it give the small states more power? States like New York, California and Texas would go from having large chunks of total electoral votes to a much smaller "net" of electoral votes. Wouldn't that weaken the power of the higher population states and give disproportionate power to the small, partisan states? In other words, the electoral votes for the minority would effectively cancel out that number of electoral votes for the majority resulting in the state having far fewer "effective" votes.

Example: State of Shock has 100 electoral votes. Popular vote goes 55-45. Instead of having 100 electoral votes for the majority, they end up with only 10 "effective" votes. 10% of what they would have had.

State of Confusion has 10 electoral votes. Popular vote goes 55-45. They would end up with 6 majority and 4 minority (assuming we would round up to the majority). They have 2 "effective" votes. 20% of what they would have had.

I haven't really thought it through, but that's my impression on a "first pass".

Perhaps others can explain if/why my thinking is flawed.

[TroyF]

Sorry I didn't get in on this before. . . I think it is a HORRIBLE idea. I think it's bad from both sides. It eliminates Colorado from being any kind of player in future presidential races.

Not that I'd mind seeing less ads. . . but that's not the point. The sick thing is that it's being funded and lobbied by a bunch of people outside the state. It's interesting that the Californians are doing it in this state rather than in their state. I wonder why that is. . . . hmmmmm. . . lets see. You split Colorado, a traditionally Repbulican state and essentially make the state meaningless and you leave California, a democratic state with a large number of electoral votes, don't get split at all.

If Republicans were pulling this garbage, they'd be talking about election fixing. Instead, it's about making your vote more powerful.

Just wait. . . the same people lobbying for this bill will be crying about it in 15 years when Denver's demographic turns left. (which it's already started to do with a higher minority population) In 15 years, they'll be talking about how the minority vote is getting killed by this policy and wanting to remove it.

No matter how any other vote turns in this state, I pray that this one goes down. And down hard.

[Vegas Vic]

But Vic, that might work on limited scales, if only one or two states did that, but if all 50 states made that kind of a move, it would completely skew the balance of power as far as Presidential politics go. Take another real good look at the 2000 map. While Colorado having a split electoral system would have given Gore the 2000 election, if the entire nation had used such a system, the election wouldn't even have been close.

Colorado is proposing doing it on a popular vote proportional basis, which I am opposed to.

[ScottVib]

To me the way to avoid gerrymandering is to not let the state legislatures draw the districts. Districting needs to be handled by an independent (non-elected) entity.

The law states that congressional districts are supposed to be contiguous and compact. In Maryland the 3rd district is contiguous by the width of one city street as it stretches from the Northern suburbs of Baltimore, skirting around the city, excepting the Harbord and then stretching down the BW Parkway sucking in Columbia and Fort Meade and then out to Annapolis. The 1st District comprises the Eastern Shore and then jumps accross the bay to grab the part of Anne Arundel county not already in the 3rd district, before looping around the top of the bay to grab the Northern portions of Baltimore and Harford counties.