States Consider Toying With Electoral College

catocom

catocom

Well-Known Member
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

WASHINGTON — Critics of a ballot initiative that would retroactively transform the way the state distributes its electoral votes in the presidential election say they worry Colorado could mimic another infamous state in the 2000 election.

"We don’t want Colorado to be the Florida of 2004," said Kate Atkinson, spokeswoman for a group called Coloradans Against a Really Stupid Idea (search), which is fighting a ballot initiative that would change Colorado’s "winner-take-all" electoral college vote distribution to a system in which presidential candidates would get a share of the state’s nine electoral votes in proportion to their take of the popular vote.

If it passes, the new rule would apply to the 2004 election, and in a close race like 2000, it might mean all the difference to the national outcome of the race.

The initiative's impact on the national election would almost immediately lead to a court battle over the new law’s constitutionality, said Bill Whalen, political expert with the Hoover Institution (search) at Stanford University. "It wouldn’t be quite as controversial as hanging chads, but it would be a frustration."
Click to expand...
Full story at fox

I think if one state does it then all of um should Have to.

Of coarse I think it should be strictly popular vote anyway so....

I still don't see where Gore won the pop vote though. :confused:
Of coarse I didn't think Clinton would get a second either. :alienhuh:
 
Stupid stupid stupid.

The entire process is designed to make dissimilar population centers more equitable. Why canvas California when San Diego, LA & the Bay area would suffice? TX=Dallas & Houston, NY-NYC.

It ain't broke.
 
Yep it only seems it started being a problem in the last election don't it?

It seems some are trying to pull out ALL the stops. :disgust2:

Yep they either need to leave it, or go all the way, but they just want
to do it half-assed to get a certain man in,...so it seems. :confused:
 
There was one other majority vote getter losing by the electoral process so it wasn't unprecedented. If they screw with a working system then about 90% of the country won't need to bother voting. It really won't matter then.
 
Man it really does seem to be screwed up here, when we're trying to promote
Democracy in other countries, and the start wanting to change shit here.:behead:
 
It's not so much Colorado changing its electoral vote distribution that bothers me. It's the retroactive part of the bill that bothers me. Of course, it would be moot anyway because under the constitution, only a state legislature can change how the electoral votes are divvied up, and this is a citizen-started ballot initiative.

Oh, I should also point out a flaw in the logic of the supporters of the measure. They point out that, supposedly, Gore would have won because he would have gotten three of the eight electoral votes Colorado had in 2000. That would change the results of Bush 271, Gore 266 to Gore 269, Bush 268. Anyone see a problem with this? Here's a hint: 270 required to win.
 
catocom said:
Man it really does seem to be screwed up here, when we're trying to promote
Democracy in other countries, and the start wanting to change shit here.:behead:
Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth.
 
i think this article accentuates the flaws behind too much power for the states... states already have power greater than their population through the senate... i say popular vote all the way for the president... our leader should represent the people, not the states
 
With the current system your vote does count. The majority vote getter in your state then gets the electoral votes that have been predetermined by the Constitution.

Should we go to one man/one vote, period, with over 70% of the country living with 500 miles of either coast your vote will never count.
 
I, like you, live in Indiana. When I step into a voting booth on Nov. 2nd I get to choose between George Bush, John Kerry and Michael Bardnick (possibly Ralph Nader?). Bush is going to win my state, Indiana. No matter who I vote for Bush will get Indiana's EC votes. My choice will have a 0% effect on the outcome of the election.

Now, in a winner take all election, based on the 2000 election turn out numbers (link: http://www.fec.gov/pages/2000turnout/reg&to00.htm ) my vote will be able to influece the election by 0.00000095%.

edited for a typo
 
Should enough LEGAL voters agree with you then Kerry will get ours. Hey, look at our deceased Governor...no conservative he.

MY MAN MITCH!!
 
rrfield said:
With the current system my vote does not count. Period.
Click to expand...

That's the way I felt through both Clinton terms. :(

rr, I must a missed something of misresd somewhere.
I coulda swore you were from over like England, or Britain or something. :confused:

Oh well, didn't mean ti dis you there. :brush:
 
I wouldn't be opposed to changing all the states this way, but I think changing one or two would be very awkward. Also, wouldn't this be a fed level decision, as it is for a fed election?
 
Gonz said:
Should we go to one man/one vote, period, with over 70% of the country living with 500 miles of either coast your vote will never count.
Click to expand...

every vote counts in a popular vote scenario

and yes, it gives the more populous regions more weight... but they deserve it... there is a reason why they are more populated... it's because they are more prosperous... and what would we lose? farm subsidies? a few outdated military facilities?

i'm not talking about bush/gore here... i'm talking a more "free market" political system
 
brownjenkins said:
every vote counts in a popular vote scenario

and yes, it gives the more populous regions more weight... but they deserve it... there is a reason why they are more populated... it's because they are more prosperous... and what would we lose? farm subsidies? a few outdated military facilities?

i'm not talking about bush/gore here... i'm talking a more "free market" political system
Click to expand...

Sounds like a resident of the Northeast. :swing:
 
I really don't know what the right answer/fix is, but they shouldn't even be talking
about changin' shit in an election year, much less this close to the election it's self. :grumpy:
 
HomeLAN said:
Sounds like a resident of the Northeast. :swing:
Click to expand...

damn right!

my first choice would be making new england a sovereign nation... but that could get messy

i have absolutely no problems with the other regions of the country, btw... i just think interests in places like the midwest lie in much different directions then ours do... and, by the same token, they should be allowed to take things in the direction that they want without us crazy new englanders getting in the way

we can all still be friends :D
 
brownjenkins said:
damn right!

my first choice would be making new england a sovereign nation... but that could get messy

we can all still be friends :D
Click to expand...
:lol2:

I've reread my responses in this thread, and geez I almost sounded like Kerry there. :suicide:
 
catocom said:
I really don't know what the right answer/fix is, but they shouldn't even be talking
about changin' shit in an election year, much less this close to the election it's self. :grumpy:
Click to expand...

Umm... every year is an election year, just not a presidential one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top