Colorado is getting more attention this year than usual. For one, the state might go either way this time rather than being solidly Republican.

Possibly more important is Amendment 36. (need Acrobat Reader to open the pdf file)

In a nutshell, Amendment 36 would split the 9 Colorado electoral votes by percentage of popular votes. Potentially, a third party candidate could get some electoral votes. Definately, some EC votes will go Repub and some Demo.

This amendment would take effect for the 2004 election. If Amendment 36 passes, the outcome of the election could be impacted, with most analysist thinking that it would help Kerry and hurt Bush.

Some analysts have speculated that passage of Amendment 36 could throw the whole election into the courts again.

I'm going to vote for this change, but what do you think?

Debate question:

Should Colorado adopt Amendment 36 and thus split its electoral votes for the 2004 election?

Should Colorado adopt Amendment 36 and thus split its electoral votes for the 2004 election?

I would say yes, because I'm actually against the idea of the all or none electoral college in the first place. The reasons the electoral college was put in place aren't valid anymore as a generalization.

I don't think a candidate should win by a straight up or down popular vote, but personally I would like to see all 50 states implement something like this. If you live in a state that traditionally goes red or blue and you hold a different political opinion, it seems to me that your voice is essentially lost because the electoral votes that count are distributed based on the majority in an all or none fashion. Why should your voice as a Democrat be lost because you live in Texas or lost as a Republican because you live in California?

This seems like it would also level the playing field for independents a little bit and lay the groundwork for making them a viable third party. Right now a third party candidate stands little chance of winning an entire state to get any electoral votes. However, they can and frequently do win certain districts which would give them a few votes.

Finally, I think it would be good because it would change the way candidates campaign for president. Right now they have a base they can pretty much count on and they go after a few battleground states each election ignoring the rest of the country. Something like this puts the whole country up for grabs again and will force both sides to bring their positions closer to the middle to appeal to everyone and not just splinter groups.

Glad to see the conversation about Amendment 36. I'm working on this initiative, and I'd like to invite you all to post comments on our blog as well: http://www.makeyourvotecount.com

I've been working for several years on projects to engage more people in the political process. I agree completely that people in states where they are outnumbered (Rs in NY or Ds in TX, for example) have a real disincentive to vote. If you know that your vote is going to be represented in your state's electoral college votes, even if the race isn't close in your state, then you have much more incentive to participate.

Nothing is more fundamental to our nation than the idea of one person, one vote. Proportionality is the best way to make sure that the Electoral College doesn't work against that idea.

If anyone is so inclined, we'd love to have your support. Visit us at www.makeyourvotecount.com

This is some of the best news I've heard this week. I hope it passes, and other states follow suit. I believe the other states that split their electoral votes (ME & NE?) allocate their votes by first-past-the-post elections in each congressional district, not nearly as proportional as COs proposal. Good luck to all you in CO, I hope you vote for this.

Yes, the fine cornhusker state is one of two that split the vote. It's a rather recent phenomenon and hasn't been used since its implementation in '96. A little write-up about it can be found ere at the Center for Voting and Democracy There is some talk that kerry might win one of our three districts, that being the first congressional district, which encompasses Lincoln and Lancaster County. Omaha tends to be conservative, even with a democratic mayor, while the third district, where i live, has NEVER elected a democrat as representative. It's roughly the size of Iowa and is represented by Tom Osborne, the man who knows more about football than voters know about his farm policy.

The Colorado proposal is a step in the right direction. For too long, members of a certain party have had their votes effectively cast away due solely to the fact of geography, and that is a true shame. How could you be against a more fair, proportional form of representation?

I thought it might be unconstitutional; however, it will be hard to make the argument based on the constitution.



It clearly say it is up to the states.

If the state of California did such a thing, Kerry would loose. Though Kerry has the popular vote, he does not have the vote in the country side of California. I am sure many states would have split votes. Who knows if it is more or less representative of the popular vote in a close race.

To the question, I would be interested to see the outcome of the election and know the reaction of the people and the candidates.

I don't think that if CO is successful, and other states follow suit, that it particularly benefits either party. I do think it benefits (d)emocrocy & representation. I'm particularly impressed with colorado's proposal, in that the states electoral votes are representative of the proportion of voters. I believe ME & NE have each vote allocated by congressional district, with each district's election still being first-past-the-post plurality. I don't know how those two states divvy up their 'senatorial' electoral votes.


I think that the only way people in those states could be dissapointed, is if they did not get to co-opt opposing voter's electoral representation.

Yes, and if this were done in Texas, Bush may not win there either.

I think the point here is that candidates would have to campaign in almost all of the states again. Take a look at this years election run so far. Bush and Kerry have basically restricted their hard-core campaigning to a mere handful of states - Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

Oh, sure, they've both been to a few other places to make sure their base is intact. But how much different would it be, if they had to actually campaign in all 50 states, and really court the voters in each state, instead of just a half dozen?

It certainly couldn't hurt the process any more than it's already been hurt, and just might start to bring people back to the polls, because they can believe that their vote really counts.

Check out the link in my previous post, electoral votes are awarded based on the winner in each district as you correctly stated while the "senatorial" votes are given to the candidate that wins the total popular vote.

The major arguments against Amendment 36 in Colorado go along these lines:

1) Doing away with winner-takes-all will weaken Colorado's voice in presidential elections.

My take: What voice? Didn't know Colorado had a voice. The people of Colorado have many voices, and they aren't all Republican either. Amendment 36 will give Coloradans who have not had voices under the old rules to finally be heard in presidential elections.

2) Amendment 36 could be unconstitutional, thus throwing the 2004 election into the courts. It'll be more of a disaster than the 2000 election.

My take: I'm willing to take that chance. Those who will be pushing to throw this into court will be Republican operatives should the election go to Kerry in a manner where four EC votes could swing it to Bush. I don't think this is going to happen, and the risk of this will be clearer as Election Day comes closer.

I'm also willing to risk the uncertain period while this issue gets resolved. Even with its string of SNAFUs, the Bush administration should be able to carry on at least minimal governing business while the courts decide. The courts will make this issue priority to figure out who is our next president by January, 2005.

3) The Founding Fathers wanted the EC, therefore it's not wise to mess with tradition.

My take: whaaaaa? Amendment 36 does not get rid of the EC. It only modifies how Colorado decides who gets the votes. It's a very simply mathematical procedure based on percentages. Even grade school children could figure it out.

But then maybe that's the real problem? Too simple?

4) This thing is funded by a Californian!

My take: Oh, grow up. Like other Colorado initiatives haven't been funded from out of state. Is it only okay to do this if Republicans fund the intiatives? Or is this an appeal to emotions of those who don't want to Californicate Colorado? Whatever, the amendment will be on the ballot. Who funded it is irrelevant to the question.

5) This thing is only a Demo ploy to swing the election to Kerry!

My take: That's part of the motivation, I am sure. Still, I appreciate the opportunity to change how we distribute EC votes. This has been niggling me ever since I started voting, and it was one of those things in civics class way back in high school that bothered me. So it isn't all about this one election. It is about making every vote more meaningful, and that's good for this state and the country.

6) Hey, if these Demos were serious about changing the way votes get distributed, they'd push for a change nationwide!

My take: You're not really serious about that, are you? This change has to come state-by-state, not through US Constitutional amendement.

Of course, the Repubs are free to spend scads of money bringing about this change. If they wanted it, that is. Don't think they do, not at all. Here's the tradition that's hinted at but not spoken straight up:

Republicans are afraid of the masses. They don't trust the masses to vote right. Power needs to be centralized, and the EC serves to help centralize the power by discouraging the masses to vote. In other words, the top dog should never be elected by popular vote. It's just too, um, populace-like. Darn near socialism, by gosh!

The Colorado amendment in and of itself is not a bad idea. But at this time, it is a bad idea. If Colorado adopts this amendment, Colorado will in essence become irrelevant in all future Presidential races. Who would bother campaigning there knowing that they will either receive 4 or 5 electoral votes, so no matter what they do (unless the election is a Reaganesque landslide), they will either gain or lose only 1 electoral vote. A Republican might as well campaign in DC and hope to get those 3 votes or a Democrat could go to Alaska for those 3 votes. Unless a vast majority of the states adopted similar amendments, this amendment will be a mistake at this time for Colorado to adopt.

It has to start somewhere, and I personally think this should be the goal for the entire nation. That won't happen if someone doesn't step up and prove that it works.

Furthermore, I doubt that it will have as trivial consequences as you suggest. Colorado has been a traditionally Red State for a while and solidly counted on by the GOP candidate in elections. By allowing the votes to be split, it could force candidates to re-think their strategy in Colorado (or lack of one) to get as many votes as possible.

The effect in future elections is that the Democratic candidate won't ignore the state because he could garner some votes and the Republican candidate won't take the state for granted (and ignore them) because he is assured the votes. It also gives independents like Nader a chance.

The end result will be nothing but positive for Colorado because they'll actually matter to the candidates running for office for the first time in a while. Maybe some of our colorado residents can answer this - when is the last time Bush or Kerry visited Colorado outside the primaries?

Cube jockey beat me to the post.

I would like to point out that only a fraction of votes are decided by geographical campagning, more are decided by party platforms, historical voting, and local politics.

Bush was there last week I think, maybe the week before. I watched part of the video of that event where John Elway introduced him.

I think it would be a huge mistake for Colorado to do this, especially on their own. It will effectively dilute it's influence in national politics. I do wonder though how keen the Democrats would be for California to pass something similar to this.

Well speaking as a California resident, a Democrat and someone who lives in extremely liberal San Francisco I would be all for California adopting this measure. I do not look at it as California losing influence in national politics, I consider it giving every Californian a voice in national politics, even those who I consider to be misguided and disagree with.

Personally I'd very much like to see Bush coming to California and trying to explain to people why outsoucring all of the white collar IT, finance and accounting jobs the state has lost is a good idea. I'd like to see Kerry paying more attention to issues in California, rather than making a few obligatory visits and assuming he has the state in the bag.

This isn't a question of loss of votes or gain of votes by the Democrats or Republicans, it is a question of actually making everyone's vote count. I'm sure that you'd like to think your vote this November is going to count Aquilla, but due to the way our electorate is setup it wouldn't matter if you stayed home because California is a blue state this year and I don't see much changing that. I think that your vote should count, just the same as the votes by Democrats in Texas should count.

I believe that at least one clause of this proposal is un-Constitutional.



I believe that retroactively changing election law is un-Constitutional. Actually, retroactively changing ANY law is un-Constitutional.

I wonder if Kerry were up in Colorado polls would this even be an initiative on the ballot? Bush has led in Colorado all year.

Some, like Cube Jockey, do not believe in the Electoral College and thus would support it regardless of polls. Others may have more partisan motives.

This specific initiative is un-Constitutional, however, and seems to be partisan driven (given the desire to make the method retroactive).

I'm not necessarily questioning you Amlord, but what section of the constitution do you think makes this Colorado amendment unconstitutional?


That may be the case Amlord, but that also doesn't invalidate the idea either. As I have tried to argue, this would be a good thing for all states to adopt.

AML, on what are you basing this take? I can see it for criminal law, but this is electoral law. It's a change in methodology, not a change in the process. Both Demos and Repubs have their EC folks chosen to cast their votes after the general election, after the popular votes are counted, and after it's determined if the change in methodology passes.

So this really isn't retroactive. The process of sending the delegates for making the EC vote will not have started by the time we know if Am. 36 has passed. In other words, the EC will not have yet elected the next President.

Let's see, Kerry was here last month I think. What did he have to say? Don't know and don't care. I don't care if any candidate for Prez visits Colorado. What's up with the visiting thing? Are we saying that the local concerns of Colorado will be better served by our future President and the administration? Isn't that why we have Congress folks, and aren't they much better suited for getting good done for Colorado? We have no problem splitting that representation among the parties, and we select them with popular votes.

Eh, I'm not scared that some future candidate will not visit Colorado because of one major thing ignored so far in this debate:

Of all the Western states, Colorado is the most fun to visit. Well, I am just a tad prejudiced on this opinion as I truly love my adopted home state, willing to put up with anything to stay: hell, high water, bad economy, Texans (just kidding), blizzards, crooked county commissioners, wacko right wing nuts, and terrible drivers. Anyone going through the West will make Colorado a destination, including Presidential candidates. They'll have to make speeches too, in order to write off the trip as political business. But they'll really be here for the beauty and fun.

I can think of no other state more fitted to lead the way out of the winner-take-all desecration of democracy.

The whole "visiting" thing wasn't really the core of my point. My point was:
- The candidates take for granted red states and blue states and don't spend much time focusing on issues those states might care about. Instead their platform becomes suited to a few battleground states instead of a whole nation on many issues. The effect is that neither Kerry nor Bush really care how bad the economy is for people in Pueblo and they won't invest time trying to get their vote, but they very much care how things are working in places like Ohio and Florida. These people may have similar issues, but the attention is intensly focused on a few states.

I'm all for this amendment, and I hope other states will follow Colorado's lead. I would like California to do the same. I would also have no objection to amending the US Constitution to force all states to institute proportional representation simultaneously. Maybe, we could get instant run-off voting introduced as well. And, man, Aquilla, you're looking for a conspiracy under every bush™ . Leaving partisan politics aside, this is a good thing™.

This statement is the whole argument for supporting this amendment. As a native Coloradan with a liberal bent, I have always felt that my vote simply doesn't count - so why bother?

When was the last time you heard either candidate express any real interest in problems facing western states? - Water rights, illegal immigration, population growth, declines in farming/ranching, environmental impacts of mining/oil/gas exploitation, and the third rail of Colorado politics - Taxpayer Rights.

Most Coloradans are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We care mostly about individual rights and want government (and taxes) off our backs but on the other hand we have a very close relationship with our environment and want it protected. These issues do not fall neatly into either Republican or Democratic camps.

I support this amendment because it will help us Westerners to be more influential in the presidential election process and hopefully will make the candidates more aware of the issues that are important to us rather than just a Red or Blue state.

I say that because my understanding of the arguments made in Bush v. Gore (the Florida election dispute) in which Bush's lawyers argued that the Florida Supreme Court changed the laws retroactively, while Gore's argued that there was no retroactive change to the election process.

Considering that this Amendment specifically says that the change is "retroactive" to the 2004 Presidential campaign, I think even its sponsors believe that this language is necessary.

I don't think one can separate the results of the votes from the votes. Therefore, the law concerning the disposition of the Electors would need to be in place at the time the votes are cast. This means that an Amendment passed on election day would not be in effect on that day.

Otherwise, what would have stopped Colorado from doing this on the Second week in November in 2000 and changing the outcome of that election? The laws need to be in place BEFORE the election.

Well, Aquilla beat me to the correct response regarding when candidates were last in Colorado. Colorado has been consistently Republican in recent elections, but the large number of independent voters in Colorado keep it in play. As soon as their votes are split, then candidates would be foolish to actually visit the state to battle over a single electoral vote. At least now they have the incentive of 9 votes so that they will come and visit the state.

I have no problem with the amendment - the problem occurs if it is done only 1 state at a time it could change election results, especially if only a Republican or only a Democratic state enacts it first. The 2000 election results would have changed if votes had been split in that election (the Nebraska/Maine method), but not to a Democrat's liking. Bush would have beaten Gore by an even larger margin (go to http://www.kiva.net/~jsagarin/sports/electoral.htm to see Jeff Sagarin's analysis of all presidential elections since 1968 under their plan). I don't know how the 2000 election would have turned out if votes were split the Colorado way, but if anyone has enough free time on their hands to do an analysis, it would be interesting to see.

AML, I do see the argument you're making but don't think this amendment is unconstitutional.

We have two votes: popular and EC. That does not change.

The popular vote will decide the way to divy up EC votes, either status quo or change. This change in divying up the EC votes goes into effect (if passed) immediately. The popular vote process does not change.

And so, the change to the EC vote goes into effect before the EC votes are cast.

But this might not be the take of the courts should the amendment pass. Who knows? It's a pretty fine time line situation.

However, think of criminal law. A criminal law passes, and that can't effect actions done before it passes. Agreed. So an amendment passes and it can't effect prior EC votes, like the 2000 election. But the EC vote hasn't been made yet for 2004, and there you go.

Here's the actual wording of the section you've referenced:



Seems to me that the term "retroactively" is intended to avoid claims that the voters of Colorado, in the popular vote on this amendment to the Colorado constitution, do not want it to be in effect for the 2004 EC vote. Yes, we do! So don't claim it's a retroactive law (because it isn't, see above), and don't claim that we were duped into thinking it would not apply to the 2004 EC vote. It will.

Amendment 2 was struck down by the Supreme Court due to vague language. This language is very clear and to the point. If we want it, we will split EC votes for the 2004 EC election, which comes at some date after November 2, 2004.

Edit Addition:

The argument about this being a Demo trick to help Kerry falls apart if the popular vote actually goes Kerry's way. Instead of 9, he'll only get 5, maybe 6. Right now Bush leads Kerry by 12 points, but new voter registration is way backed up. New voters aren't being polled.

Plus we have a lot of Fort Carson families who have direct experience with the Iraq situation.

Just wanted to point that out, not a direct thing for you, AML.

Again, I believe the actual Electoral allocation is a formality, which is determined by the popular vote on Election Day.

At the very least, this is going to cause a challenge, especially if it would change the outcome of the whole election. Since it isn't obvious whether or not this is Constitutional, I see the Supreme Court being involved again. I don't think that is a good thing to constantly throw the results of the election to be decided by the Court.

I don't necessarily think this is a bad idea in and of itself. It is simply the motivations and the timing that I question.

Sure. Then you agree that splitting the EC vote by percentage of popular vote is a great idea, just not in this election. I get it. But you're forgetting that Kerry could win this state's popular vote, in which case he gets fewer EC votes under Am. 36.

I think this is the perfect time for Colorado to make this decision. Our state is a swing state, and so the chances of either candidate getting an advantage is nearly the same. Like I said, with voter registration lines growing here by the hour, the chances are heading to be equal by Election Day.

So what if a Supreme Court decision has to be made? We lived through the last one, and we'll live through the next one. It would be ironic indeed if Bush wins the second term by SC decision. I can hear the howling already: double appointed. Eh, we can handle it.

But I have a belief too: Kerry wins by a significant number of votes, way more than 5 or 6. Or Bush wins by a significant number. I don't think this election will be as close as the last one, running down to a single state.

History doesn't work that way.

I know this looks like a double post, but it has been more than a month since the previous post.

Amendment 36 lost -- 66% of Colorado voters did not want to split the vote.

Yet I know a rumor was circulating about the amendment being declaired unconstitutional. Have not seen any reliable verification of the court decision as yet, so I'll consider it a rumor until verification comes across my bow.

Ah well, this state isn't ready for democracy yet. Apparently 2/3 of the population think Colorado first, America second. That could be a fundamental flaw in our basic organization of united states, a basic distrust of union that has been with us since the founding, led to the Civil War, and still hangs around our necks to this day.

Meanwhile, it looks like Ohio will be the deciding state this time around. Kerry could become the second minority President in a row. Don't think that this has ever happened before. If this does come to pass, will splitting EC votes become a Republican cause? I think that would happen, and the arguments will then shift around.

The next couple of weeks should be interesting.