Should Colorado leave the winner take all electorial vote system ?

[Spider]

:kiddingme

[Hotrod]

I think no but someone who has looked into this deeper explain what you found. I know the founder of the idea is a guy in CA so why the heck dont they try it there first. ???

[Hercules Rockefeller]

The guy is from Cali that funded the initiative and they're using Colorado as a test since it's not that hard to get state amendments on the ballot. I think he's also big on legalizing just about every drug.

It's a bad idea to pass it, since it lessens even more what little influence Colorado has in the Presidential elections. I think most elected officials in the state are against it. Doesn't seem to me that a lot of elected officials or candidates are for it on either side of the aisle in the state.

[Spider]

I think no but someone who has looked into this deeper explain what you found. I know the founder of the idea is a guy in CA so why the heck dont they try it there first. ???
From what I understand , I am still trying to figure it all out , but it has somthing to do with 1879 law ...... Here is a brief on it
http://www.ballot.org/news/News_Articles/September2004/coelections.html

[Spider]

The guy is from Cali that funded the initiative and they're using Colorado as a test since it's not that hard to get state amendments on the ballot. I think he's also big on legalizing just about every drug.

It's a bad idea to pass it, since it lessens even more what little influence Colorado has in the Presidential elections. I think most elected officials in the state are against it. Doesn't seem to me that a lot of elected officials or candidates are for it on either side of the aisle in the state.
Last I heard on Radio , the admenment is winning ....... Winning in a landslide

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Last I heard on Radio , the admenment is winning ....... Winning in a landslide

I've seen 2 polls on this Amendment. 1 was y45 n44. The other which is the more recent had people supporting the amendment at barely over a third of those sampled, with "No" at 45%.

and if that article is true, Colorado becomes even more irrelevant than I thought it would. If someone pulls 60% of the vote and only gets 5 EVs, that means that only 1 EV in the state is truly in play since I don't think either side see Colorado becoming so partisanly divided that one party can't pull 40%. No one will visit Colorado if they know they already have 4 EVs in the bag and the most they can gain is 1 more by coming to the state. That's a waste of time and money.

This might sound good on its face, but it is a bad bad idea.

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

I think all elections should be tied to the popular vote. This would work if every state did it, but if Colo goes it alone it will just dillute their influence on the elction.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

and there's serious Constitutional questions with this Amendment. One being that it's up to the state legislature to decide how to apportion EVs, and the other is the clause that makes the Amendment valid for an election that it is also on the ballot for.

[Spider]

I've seen 2 polls on this Amendment. 1 was y45 n44. The other which is the more recent had people supporting the amendment at barely over a third of those sampled, with "No" at 45%.

and if that article is true, Colorado becomes even more irrelevant than I thought it would. If someone pulls 60% of the vote and only gets 5 EVs, that means that only 1 EV in the state is truly in play since I don't think either side see Colorado becoming so partisanly divided that one party can't pull 40%. No one will visit Colorado if they know they already have 4 EVs in the bag and the most they can gain is 1 more by coming to the state. That's a waste of time and money.

This might sound good on its face, but it is a bad bad idea.
Thats not what the piece said ... if Bush gets 60% of the vote he gets 5 EV
loser gets 4 , Colorado only has 9 EV ....
I know you are narrow minded and wont look at the whole Picture , but from what I understand is Lets say Bush wins 80% then he would get 7 EV's and so forth ... and from what I understand it is a better system then some states run ....... But like i say you wont see the picture unless it is to Bush's advantage ........

[Spider]

I think all elections should be tied to the popular vote. This would work if every state did it, but if Colo goes it alone it will just dillute their influence on the elction.
Well I realy dont know enough about this bill to make a deep informed comment on it , but if it works, I could see alot more states moving to the system .

[Spider]

I could see Republicans in California , new York , and other places embrassing this issue , thier vote would count , I know the feeling being a Democrat in Wyoming .....
Wouldnt it be an advantage for Republicans to pull out some EV's out of California and new York ?

[Rohirrim]

Nope. In the short term it might (and I do mean "might")work out nicely for the Dems, but in the long term it's a stupid idea, unless every state in the union does it simultaneously (which is a good idea). I really hate the idea of a candidate winning the popular vote, and losing the election. It goes against what Democracy stands for. But the idea that Colorado should split its vote is almost as stupid as term limitations (the law that the GOP wrote to get rid of Pat Schroeder), but not quite.

[Spider]

Nope. In the short term it might work out nicely for the Dems, but in the long term it's a stupid idea, unless every state in the union does it simultaneously (which is a good idea). I really hate the idea of a candidate winning the popular vote, and losing the election. It goes against what Democracy stands for. But the idea that Colorado should split its vote is almost as stupid as term limitations (the law that the GOP wrote to get rid of Pat Schroeder), but not quite.
Fair take ..... Let me put this way , lets say Colorado could be a testing ground only 9 EV's @ stake , realy wouldnt effect an Election say like 21 Ev's , so Use Colorado as a lab rat to see if the system works ? if the people like it and they feel thier vote counts , Only good can come of it , after all elections are supposed to be about us voting ......

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Thats not what the piece said ... if Bush gets 60% of the vote he gets 5 EV
loser gets 4 , Colorado only has 9 EV ....
I know you are narrow minded and wont look at the whole Picture , but from what I understand is Lets say Bush wins 80% then he would get 7 EV's and so forth ... and from what I understand it is a better system then some states run ....... But like i say you wont see the picture unless it is to Bush's advantage ........

Apparently you're not smart enough to understand what I was saying, nor are you able to see the big picture, which you accuse me of missing.

A candidate will win 5 EVs by winning the majority. That candidate will still only get 5 EVs if he wins up to 60% of the vote in Colorado. That means that if a candidate gets 40% of the vote, he gets 4 EVs, regardless of getting a majority or not. No Reps will argue that the Dems will get less than 40% in a Presidential vote in Colorado. Ditto with no Dems arguing that the Reps can't pull 40% either. If 40% = 4 Evs and both sides concede that the other side will pull 40%, by using simple logic Spider we come to the conclusion that only 1 EV in Colorado is actually in play. Who gets the majority decides that. Bush or any other Rep candidate is guarenteed 4 EVs, and the same with Kerry or any other Dem.

Knowing this, why would any candidate spend time or money in Colorado to pick up 1 more EV? While this would have decided the election in 2000, played out over time, the vast majority of Presidential elections are not going to be that close EV-wise. All this does is render Colorado irrelevant on the national Presidential scene for both parties, since the partisan distributions makes it almost impossible for either side to pull over 60% of the vote.

[Spider]

Apparently you're not smart enough to understand what I was saying, nor are you able to see the big picture, which you accuse me of missing.

A candidate will win 5 EVs by winning the majority. That candidate will still only get 5 EVs if he wins up to 60% of the vote in Colorado. That means that if a candidate gets 40% of the vote, he gets 4 EVs, regardless of getting a majority or not. No Reps will argue that the Dems will get less than 40% in a Presidential vote in Colorado. Ditto with no Dems arguing that the Reps can't pull 40% either. If 40% = 4 Evs and both sides concede that the other side will pull 40%, by using simple logic Spider we come to the conclusion that only 1 EV in Colorado is actually in play. Who gets the majority decides that. Bush or any other Rep candidate is guarenteed 4 EVs, and the same with Kerry or any other Dem.

Knowing this, why would any candidate spend time or money in Colorado to pick up 1 more EV? While this would have decided the election in 2000, played out over time, the vast majority of Presidential elections are not going to be that close EV-wise. All this does is render Colorado irrelevant on the national Presidential scene for both parties, since the partisan distributions makes it almost impossible for either side to pull over 60% of the vote.
Well , What I am saying is use Colorado as a Model , But the measure is clearly the winner of the majority vote , wins the Majority of the EV's so your formula doesnt work.. for example Lets say Reagan was running and Reagan won 80% of the popular vote in Colorado he wins more then 5 ev's now you multiply that formula over 50 states , you will have a Canidate spending more time in all of the states , I didnt mean to insult you , I was just going off our past convos ......

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Well , What I am saying is use Colorado as a Model , But the measure is clearly the winner of the majority vote , wins the Majority of the EV's so your formula doesnt work.. for example Lets say Reagan was running and Reagan won 80% of the popular vote in Colorado he wins more then 5 ev's now you multiply that formula over 50 states , you will have a Canidate spending more time in all of the states , I didnt mean to insult you , I was just going off our past convos ......

The problem is that in a situation like a Presidential election, it won't exactly be representative of what would happen on a national scale. People might like it, but on the practical side, Colorado will be ignored by the politicians unless pretty much every state has the same set up.

Yes I understand the majority winner will 5 EVs. But with the current party registration breakdown in Colorado, short of someone making a huge mistake after they have the nomination, both parties can expect 40% of the vote for their candidate and thus 4 EVs. There's 8 of the 9 accounted for, all that's left is who is going to get the majority and that 9th vote. There's no incentive for a candidate to come to Colorado, or spend money there, if the payoff is simply one vote.

No harm on what you said, this is internet message board and we've gone back and forth before. I'm sorry if I insulted you as well.

[Old Dude]

On the bright side, if we get marginalized, we won't have to put up with so many stupid TV commercials next time.

[Spider]

The problem is that in a situation like a Presidential election, it won't exactly be representative of what would happen on a national scale. People might like it, but on the practical side, Colorado will be ignored by the politicians unless pretty much every state has the same set up.

Yes I understand the majority winner will 5 EVs. But with the current party registration breakdown in Colorado, short of someone making a huge mistake after they have the nomination, both parties can expect 40% of the vote for their candidate and thus 4 EVs. There's 8 of the 9 accounted for, all that's left is who is going to get the majority and that 9th vote. There's no incentive for a candidate to come to Colorado, or spend money there, if the payoff is simply one vote.

No harm on what you said, this is internet message board and we've gone back and forth before. I'm sorry if I insulted you as well.
Isee where you are getting at , with colorado , and your correct , What I am driving at is the entire USA , nothing is worse then the feeling that you are throwing your vote away , and under the current system , I have that feeling .... Republicans in California , New York , Democrats in the south , we all could get our voice .......

[broncogary]

Isee where you are getting at , with colorado , and your correct , What I am driving at is the entire USA , nothing is worse then the feeling that you are throwing your vote away , and under the current system , I have that feeling .... Republicans in California , New York , Democrats in the south , we all could get our voice .......

I say we test it in a state with just one electoral vote first. That way, if it doesn't work, there's very little damage done. hmmm...

[Nick C.]

I just today realize that the Electoral College was not Winner take all in every state thought that was the case here in colorado. I plan on reading up on this stuff tommrow to make a informed decsion

[broncogary]

If you're going to apportion the EV proportionately, you might as well just go to a straight popular vote.

[Spider]

I say we test it in a state with just one electoral vote first. That way, if it doesn't work, there's very little damage done. hmmm...
well you do want a state with some EV's online to make people notice .......

[Kaylore]

My vote went to Griese. Gotta say "no" just because it would benefit the Democrats. If they pitched this in California, the Democrats would say "No" too. If this wasn't politically motivated, then I'd consider it.

[Spider]

My vote went to Griese. Gotta say "no" just because it would benefit the Democrats. If they pitched this in California, the Democrats would say "No" too. If this wasn't politically motivated, then I'd consider it.
I am a Democrat , and I say throw California in , as well as New york , all the rest of the states , I think it is as close you can get to the popular vote , without getting rid of the Electorial College , and plus the voters would be happy , knowing that thier vote does count .......

[Kaylore]

I am a Democrat , and I say throw California in , as well as New york , all the rest of the states , I think it is as close you can get to the popular vote , without getting rid of the Electorial College , and plus the voters would be happy , knowing that thier vote does count .......
Well of course if you made everyone do it, then absolutely. While you're at it, make eveyone have term limits so these career politicians get out of office.

The problem is that that voting isn't something that's outlined in the Constitution. Sure there are some ammendments detailing parameters that you have to follow, but the voting system is run and controlled by the states, and each has their own system.

If California did it, I'd be ok doing because it wouldn't mean overturning a major election.

[Spider]

Well of course if you made everyone do it, then absolutely. While you're at it, make eveyone have term limits so these career politicians get out of office.
Actually i dont believe in term limits , The voter is the ultimate term limit ..

The problem is that that voting isn't something that's outlined in the Constitution. Sure there are some ammendments detailing parameters that you have to follow, but the voting system is run and controlled by the states, and each has their own system.
I know , No system is perfect ...thats why I like to keep all options open and take a serious look @ all ideas

If California did it, I'd be ok doing because it wouldn't mean overturning a major election.
it is a start ....... if they did go to this system , it would increase voter turn out .........

[azbronco]

My understanding of the electoral college is to prevent a few large population centers from making decisions for the whole country. (IE. If the east coast and California dedcided to place a real high tax on crops grown only in Colorado New Mexico and Arizona, or had a canidate who wanted to.), your ability to effect a change would be nuetered.

[Crushaholic]

My understanding of the electoral college is to prevent a few large population centers from making decisions for the whole country.

That's exactly why America needs to keep the Electoral College in place. I don't want California, New York and Texas pulling all the weight in elections just because they are the most populated states. The Electoral College evens it out a little bit.

[TexanBob]

It's a stealth idea from California liberals to steal 4 EVs from Bush and give them to Kerry in hopes they can get to 270 EVs. The motivation is obvious. If that wasn't the objective, they wouldn't have written it so the amendment applied immediately to the 2004 vote (and setting up a whole host of legal challenges that could, at worst, tie up the whole election in the courts just like Gore did in 2000). If the idea itself was such a great idea, why did they not introduce it in their ownCalifornia which has a better system for initiatives and referendums to get something binding passed by majority vote? They are playing Coloradans for fools who they think they can hoodwink into splitting their EVs and thus benefit Kerry.

What would really be hysterical is if the amendment won and Kerry wound up winning Colorado and had 272 EVs but the amendment gave 4 EVs back to Bush who would then win instead of Kerry. If THAT happened, you would see all these liberals who thought they'd put one over the voters of Colorado, suing to have the amendment overturned! After all, it's not like liberals haven't gone to court to overturn the will of the people before (remember Amendment 2 a few years ago?).

Spider and I agree that it wouldn't be a bad idea if it were done nationwide but I agree that for Colorado to do it alone is just incredibly stupid and will only serve to rob Colorado of the financial benefits of presidential spending for their state. Delaware would get more attention than Colorado if this ever passed.

[Paladin]

On the bright side, if we get marginalized, we won't have to put up with so many stupid TV commercials next time.

This is absolutely the best reason to vote for the Amendment. Let's do it!!!!

I really don't think it is altogether that important if a Presidential candidate did or did not come to Colorado, even with the present format. Most of these "visits" are made with already committed supporters, and the only thing that comes out of it is another picture in the paper.

The ads we have been seeing are ghastly and impart bad or misinformation or declare innuendoes and half-baked ideas. That goes for both sides of the aisle.

[cbs1177]

I feel if it passes then other states will look at it and then it will cause closer elections of even ties in the electral college and then courts and house of Representatives will decide why change a system that has worked for most of 200 plus years. Else candiates will spend their whole time in NY, CA, and other big states and ignore the smaller states.

[watermock]

Look up the definition of a republic of democratic states.

Also, you might be well informed that the eletorate isn't even bound to vote for the winner.

A popular electoral college would actually give hundreds of votes from California and New York.

Bush will carry 40 states and barely win the election.

The reason for the electoral college is to give individual states a stake in the general election.

40 states went red in 2000. If the Democrats want to give Bush 40 percent of the vote in New York and California, have at it. Bush would have a landslide election.

[TomServo]

as far as i can tell all this would do is freeze the presidential winner to 5 ecv's in CO. it would be a perpetual split with denver, boulder, and pueblo voting dem and the rest of the state rpub. what kind of favors would a future pres. dem or rpub do colorado for a measly 5 ecv's

a californian or californian group is driving this. let them split up all those CA votes first .