Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Government Politics

Colorado To Vote on Electoral College Plan 198

Posted by Hemos from the constitutional-change dept.
siriuskase writes "Is it too much to ask of our technology/math skills to award electorial votes in proportion to the popular vote? Colorado might be up to the task. From the article: On Nov. 2, voters will consider a proposal to immediately scrap the state's winner-take-all electoral vote system and allow candidates to keep a proportion of the delegates they win. In theory, a candidate could win 55 percent of the statewide vote and get only five of the state's nine electoral votes. If the proposal had been in place four years ago, Gore would have earned enough electoral votes to go to the White House. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Colorado To Vote on Electoral College Plan More

Colorado To Vote on Electoral College Plan

Comments Filter:

  • National Level (Score:5, Interesting)

    by shaka999 ( 335100 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @08:09AM (#10234108)
    Colodrado is a clear Rebublican state. In 2000 Bush got 51% to Gore's 43%. In 1996 Dole won by a slim margin. Because of this the bill won't pass.

    A bill like this could only pass in truely contested states. In a state, like Colorado, where one party dominates its against their best interest to let this go through.

    Personally, as a swing voter in CO, I love the idea. It makes me feel like my vote would count just a little more but I see no chance in it actually passing.

    Also, I think any state with such a system may be doing itself harm. It makes the state much less of a battle ground during an election and may marginalize the number of "election promisses" are granted to a state.

    • Re:National Level (Score:4, Insightful)

      by salesgeek ( 263995 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @08:17AM (#10234150) Homepage
      Colodrado is a clear Rebublican state. In 2000 Bush got 51% to Gore's 43%. In 1996 Dole won by a slim margin. Because of this the bill won't pass.

      Actually, who controls the statehouse and the state legislature matters. This is exactly the kind of thing that states try to do when the presidential vote breaks opposite of local and state elections. It's tremedously shortsited and marginalizes the value of Colorado to candidates. Why do I care if I get 4 delegates and the opposition gets 5? Even in a close election... one elector isn't going to make that much difference.

      It basically makes Colorado's vote totally and completely meaningless. Because candidates don't care how you vote, it will dilute the value of your vote and would have a dramatic effect long term on the number of pork barrel projects (read military and overengineered highway) that make it back to your state.

      • Re:National Level (Score:5, Insightful)

        by KilobyteKnight ( 91023 ) <bjm@@@midsouth...rr...com> on Monday September 13, 2004 @09:14AM (#10234577) Homepage
        Why do I care if I get 4 delegates and the opposition gets 5? Even in a close election... one elector isn't going to make that much difference.


        But it can. What it will do is make the candidate pay attention to the state even if it is not a toss up state. As an example, look at NY right now. Do you think Bush is going to even try and campaign there? It was an early write off for him. NY is going to vote Democrat. Do you think Kerry is going to pay any attention to NY? Why would he? He's going to win it. He's going to focus efforts in contested states.

        The effect of splitting the electors is to make every state contested, and force the candidates to pay attention to all of them.

        There's one thing I'd like to see done differently from the plan mentioned. Instead of a porportional system, I'd like to see a system where the candidate gets each elector based on which congressional districts they win the popular vote for. The 2 additional electors would go to the person who wins the popular vote for the entire state independant of congressional districts. This would localize the election even more, and it's similar to how the House and Senate are elected.

        • Re:National Level (Score:3, Interesting)

          by crmartin ( 98227 )
          No, it changes what some of the contested states are, but since electors are allocated proportionally to the population it makes New York and California and Florida the big prizes. States like Utah -- reliably Republican -- end up being unimportant to Democrats, because they can, at the margin, hope for only one EC vote gained or lost; New York or California become more important to either side, because a relatively small change in votes there can mean a larger number of EC votes at the margin.

          Read up on

          • Re:National Level (Score:2, Insightful)

            by tc ( 93768 )
            But doesn't the system disenfranchise a large number of voters?

            Suppose I'm a Democrat and I live in Texas, or I'm a Republican and I live in New York. In either case, my vote is worthless, and my voice isn't heard.

            It seems to me that the fairest system is just to go to a straight popular vote. One person, one vote. Why should the value of my vote vary depending on what state I live in?

            • Re:National Level (Score:4, Informative)

              by crmartin ( 98227 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @09:54PM (#10242519)
              Well, that's why it's called a "compromise". Historically, the reason was that New York and Virginia had so many votes that all the other colonies wouldn't join the Constitution unless there was a counterbalance. No election scheme can avoid "disenfranchising*" some number of voters -- at worst, (0.5000 x population) -1.

              Here and now, we have the problem that the entire state of Colorado has only half the population of New York City. (I used to work in the WTC -- and that one building had ten times the population of my home town.)

              Without the counterbalance, New York and California could vote to move everyone out of Colorado and turn it into a buffalo preserve and we couldn't do anything about it.

              There's another reason that we kind of forget having had the aberrant case of a near-perfect split last election: by having a "thresholding" effect, it's much less common for a presidential election to be really close. It is, I believe, a theorem that no election scheme can completely avoid the problems we had last time, but the chances that an election will come down to a couple of thousand disputed votes in three or four counties is damn near zero. Imagine if every election had to be settled by the Supreme Court or the House.

              * quotation marks because you've hit a pet peeve: losing an election isn't the same as being "disenfranchised". To be disenfranchised is to be deprived of the right to vote -- not being deprived of having the guy you want, win.

        • Re:National Level (Score:2, Interesting)

          by bug506 ( 584796 )

          I'd like to see a system where the candidate gets each elector based on which congressional districts they win the popular vote for.

          This is how the electoral college votes are determined in Maine (since 1972) and Nebraska (since 1996). However, neither state has split its electoral votes yet.

          http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/reform.htm#Congr essionalDistrict [fairvote.org]

          If this plan was used in other states (like California), I'm sure it would lead to splits in the electoral college vote.

          The main problem with th

        • I'd like to see a system where the candidate gets each elector based on which congressional districts they win the popular vote for.
          The problem with that is that it would make it more likely that Congress and the Presidency would be under the control of the same party.
          That's always a bad thing.

        • Re:National Level (Score:3, Interesting)

          by nine-times ( 778537 )
          The effect of splitting the electors is to make every state contested, and force the candidates to pay attention to all of them.

          Not necessarily. If it made a difference, it would probably only change which states were considered "toss up states". Politicians would campaign based on which states had the most electors up for grabs. In other words, they would focus on areas with lot's of "swing districts" instead of focusing on "swing states".

          There's one thing I'd like to see done differently from the pla

      • Re:National Level (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Kierthos ( 225954 )
        No, it doesn't make it meaningless. Under the current plan, in most states, it doesn't matter whether you beat your opponent(s) for President by 1% or 20%, as long as you beat them. It's a winner take all situation, which means if you know you're going to win that state AND it's not worth that many electoral votes, you tend to stay out of it to focus on "swing states".

        Now, under this proposed plan, it matter how much you beat your opponents by. Instead of trying to get a bare 1% over your opponent, you wan
        • But we are not a democracy, we are a Federal Republic of which the sates are members. As a member a state has the right to determine how its electors are selected. States can maintain a reasonable amount of autonomy this way..
      • I'm not sure why this constitutes "shortsightedness". On the one hand, if the state is hotly contested, then being able to deliver its nine votes as a single block gives Colorado a bit of leverage. On the other hand, if the state is strongly tilted--say 70/30 towards GWB--then there is no reason for John Kerry to suck up to it. Under the new system, both candidates would have to keep some pressure on the state in order to keep the ratio (and hence the number of electoral votes they received) from shi
      • It basically makes Colorado's vote totally and completely meaningless.

        Wrong.

        What it does is says to candidates:

        "If Colorado is a swing state, pay less attention to it. If Colorado is not a swing state, pay more attention to it."

        Now, I admit that Colorado is, in the current election, a swing state, which means that candidates are likely to pay less attention to it -- but in 2008, if Colorado is going to vote 70% Republican, it means that both sides *still* have interest in campaigning and doing things

    • Re:National Level (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Golias ( 176380 )
      In different polls, I've seen CO being called as a close victory for each of them.

      However, this bill pretty much means that both candidates could safely ignore Colorado entirely.

      I mean, it's very unlikely for one or the other to get less than about 45% in this election, so the "winner" is only going to pick up 1 vote more than the "loser", meaning that the state flat-out doesn't matter anymore, in terms of electoral-vote importance.

      • Re:National Level (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Jahf ( 21968 )
        Yeah, it has been real close here, but lately I think we've been swinging with the national polls which means that Bush is in the lead again.

        As for not mattering, that might be true if Colorado were the only state that had this happening, but other states have begun talking about it. It may take awhile but if we do manage to kill the "all or nothing" aspect of the electoral system then the candidates have to act like -national- candidates and be solid on their issues.

        My biggest problem with Kerry more tha

        • Re:National Level (Score:3, Informative)

          by Unordained ( 262962 )
          I live down in south-western colorado; a majority of the people in this county are registered republicans, yet from talking to them, they really seem to be more democrat-leaning. I've yet to figure out how this works -- perhaps there are just one or two issues that take it all in their minds?

          Regardless of whether or not our voting system attracts presidential candidates to "care" about our state (it's lip-service everywhere, I don't think we're missing out on much), do we expect people to say "I want the w
    • Maybe making electors proportional to popular votes while remove Colorado from being a battleground state.

      Maybe that would be a Good Thing for Coloradoans.

      From what I hear, when you're a battleground state, you get two things:
      1: Bribes, otherwise known as federally funded stuff.
      2: Visits from politicians, ad nauseam.

      From a practical point of view (1) is good and (2) is bad. From a theoretical/ethical point of view, (1) is bad and (2) is good. You weigh your reasons and take your pick.
      • "1: Bribes, otherwise known as federally funded stuff"

        Also called pork. Seeing as this is how many things get funded it isn't in Colorado's best interest to be ignored. Its a corrupt system but its how things work today.

    • Re:National Level (Score:2, Insightful)

      by tdemark ( 512406 )
      Is it too much to ask of our technology/math skills to award electorial votes in proportion to the popular vote?

      It's amazing how the general populous has no problem with the idea of the Electoral College in other forms.

      For example, let's say you have two baseball teams playing a "best of seven" series.

      The games end up with the following scores:

      Game Team A Team B
      1 4 6
      2 16 3
      3 10 0
      4 2 3
      5 2 5
      6 12 0
      7 9 10

      Who should be considered the "winner" of the series? Everybody

    • and I thought the same thing, that good, at least it's more fair to us the voters, but now the candidates really won't give a shit any more.

      However, that isn't the case. Instead they focus on the districts that are in question, which may exist where the state as a whole's stance may be more sure one way or another.

      Districts that are not in question are no better or worse off than they were before.
      • However, that isn't the case. Instead they focus on the districts that are in question, which may exist where the state as a whole's stance may be more sure one way or another.

        Maine is different in two important ways. First, it's system is different than Colorado's proposal, in that the winner of each district wins that vote, and the statewide winner gets the other two, so you are fighting not for the one additional vote likely in Colorado, but 2 or 3 additional votes. Second, Maine is much smaller.

        Whe
        • That's not entirely true. Statewide it's not likely that maine will go republican in this election, at least AFAIK southern maine is strongly liberal and has a much larger population than northern maine.

          I don't believe we are actually a battleground STATE. We simply have a battleground district, our more northern half could go either way, with its one vote and one vote only.

          Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's how I'm seeing it.
          • Statewide it's not likely that maine will go republican in this election, at least AFAIK southern maine is strongly liberal and has a much larger population than northern maine.

            How does this argue against what I said? My point is that Colorado's situation is different than Maine's in key ways that hurts Colorado, compared to Maine. This was in response to someone using Maine as an example of why Colorado's system might not hurt Colorado.
            • You compared risk and reward in your example. I was pointing out that the "battleground" in Maine was not really for 3 votes, but more for just one in the contested district. As that district is split and the other is most assuredly not split, the statewide majority is fairly certain at this time.

              In any case, more to your point, think of it this way. If colorado were a "split" opinion state, both candidates would campaign there in order to get all the votes in a winner-take-all contest. If colorado is N
              • As that district is split and the other is most assuredly not split, the statewide majority is fairly certain at this time.

                I am not speaking to one particular election. Maine went to the GOP in 76, 84, and 88.

                However they still have impetus to go for a few votes with a split-vote arrangement, no matter whether the state is evenly split or not.

                Not if only one electoral vote is up for grabs, no. The investment is too high for the potential return.
                • Compared to a large, swing, winner take all state yes.

                  That however is no different than it is now; colorado would still be completely ignored compared to those states unless it too were evenly split. However if a candidate had a chance to grab a vote or two or three more, it would get *some* attention.

                  In short, basically, if your state is hardcore one way or the other it would be better off *right now* doing proportional representation in terms of the attention it would receive. If the state as a whole
                  • You're also forgetting this election could very well be decided by one electoral vote.

                    No, I am not. But if you can spend $10m in Pennsylvania to get 21 votes or $10m in Colorado to get one, you choose PA.

                    It has rarely gone republican, as you've illustrated

                    No, I illustrated it went GOP 3 of the last 7 elections.

                    It hasn't gotten us much attention, but it's gotten us more than we usually get.

                    Because it doesn't cost anything. Maine is a small state, and even assuming only one vote is up for grabs, t
    • 51% and a "slim margin" are "clear"? Put down the Newspeak dictionary, where "election promises" are defined as "kept". Eventually your doublethink may subside, so you won't "love the idea" as a voter, while thinking that it would harm your state.
    • Currently, Kerry leads in Colorado, as does Ken Salazar, the democratic canidate for Senate opposed by Pete Coors.

      It's not over yet. I'd know - I'm working on Salazar's campaign.
    • A bill like this could only pass in truely contested states. In a state, like Colorado, where one party dominates its against their best interest to let this go through.

      That is the problem with most election reforms, it requires someone to give up some of their power to make things more fair for someone else. It works best for Colorado if other states quickly follow suit. If they don't, Colorado risks being made a fool.

      It will be even harder to get reforms through that give fair representation to people

  • Not far enough... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by CommanderData ( 782739 ) *
    Ok, how hard can it really be to just do away with the whole electoral college thing? Just let each individual vote count. Say a few buddies and I go out and vote for Kerry but we're in a state that heavily backs Bush. Our votes are basically thrown away in a sea of Bush supporters, because the electoral college votes will go to Bush.

    If the so called "popular vote" was the only thing that mattered those votes cast by my buddies and I would count for something.

    Even better would be some alternative voting [boulder.co.us]
    • I'd sure like to hear a statistician weigh in on the Electoral College. Maybe after this post I'll hit google on it.

      One aspect of the Electoral College is that it lumps things. That can be good, because in 2000 there were a few close states, but Florida was the Shining Star. The recounts could be confined to Florida. (no further comment)

      Without the lumping effect (go ahead and come up with a better word than "lumping") of the Electoral College, it's possible to throw things into a nationwide recount. Giv

    • Re:Not far enough... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) * <slashdot.pudge@net> on Monday September 13, 2004 @12:38PM (#10236724) Homepage Journal
      Ok, how hard can it really be to just do away with the whole electoral college thing?

      Not hard in one sense: just amend the Constitution. The problem is that you need three fourths of states to ratify that change, and more than 1/4 of the states benefit from the existing system.

      There are many arguments against a popular vote, but for me, the most compelling is that the President is not supposed to be the leader of the people of the United States of America, but the leader of the United States of America. I know that many people don't see any difference between those two things, but there used to be, and I think it's a distinction worth supporting.

      I think we have gone too far. I think there should be no votes for electors. I think electors should be chosen by state legislatures, like they used to be. This would put the focus of elections where it really belongs: on the state governments. You would think a hell of a lot more about who you were voting for in the state Senate and House races if those were the people selecting your electoral votes.
      • There are many arguments against a popular vote, but for me, the most compelling is that the President is not supposed to be the leader of the people of the United States of America, but the leader of the United States of America.

        But with the electoral college, the President acts like the leader of the United States of Ohio, Missouri, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Also, it encourages people like Bush to make stupid-ass comments such as "What would you expect from a senator from Massachusetts?" [sfgate.com], without feel
        • But with the electoral college, the President acts like the leader of the United States of Ohio, Missouri, Florida, and Pennsylvania.

          Only because the people are voting for the electors directly. That's part of why I want the legislatures to go back to selecting them.
    • Say a few buddies and I go out and vote for Kerry but we're in a state that heavily backs Bush. Our votes are basically thrown away in a sea of Bush supporters, because the electoral college votes will go to Bush.

      Ok, how hard can it really be to just do away with the whole electoral college thing?

      Not hard,really. Just not a good idea. The end result would be the politicians spending the campaign (as well as their elected terms) kissing up to a couple of highly populated areas, even if it means screwin

  • The electoral college = good for democracy? (Score:4, Informative)

    by 3-State Bit ( 225583 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @08:43AM (#10234316)
    Why is the electoral college good for democracy?

    This article [findarticles.com] (Discover, Nov 1996 [coral cache [findarticles.com]]) suggests that the mathematics governing elections favors YOUR vote in an electoral college system.

    Whatever your political slant, I am sure you would like YOUR vote to be more favored.

    Imagine the electoral college as what happens if you're a "swing" voter in your family, your family contributing all its votes with its internal winner to your town's election, in which it is a "swing" voter in your small town, your town being a swing voter in the county election, your county being an important vote in the state election. In this case you weild extreme power. You are more likely to be in "this case" under the electoral college than in a pure vote.

    There's nothing partisan in the way in which this empowers YOUR vote - rather, all that happens is that there is a more causative effect between YOUR political idea and what actually HAPPENS. It's rather like playing both sides against each other, with those who are actually making a decision having a huge return on their investment in making that decision. In other words, your decision about how you are going to vote = larger effect on what happens in the election.

    I have not reviewed the mathematics myself, but this is how I understand the situation.

    Comments from anyone who has reviewed the issue?

    How has Natapoff's work held up over the past few years?
    • Sorry, I'm running a little late this morning, so I don't have time to read the whole thing.

      While interesting, Natapoff seems to be suggesting that the maximum effect per vote can be drawn if districting is drawn extremely carefully across all boundaries. Of course, that maximum effect per vote seems to mean how much that vote can swing the election one way or another, or how much a person can lose the popular vote and still win the election. And those district boundaries have to be drawn up in a comple
    • What about a hybrid system of sorts. I suggest that having half of a states electoral votes (rounded up, I s'pose) go to teh candidate who wins the majority vote. The remaining votes are then split up between the candidates based on percentages.

      The advantage here is that winning the majority is still important, as you will garner MOST of the electoral votes. However, it will encourage campaigning in places that may have been previously looked at as a loss. For example, if you were pretty certain that your o

  • "For years, few paid much attention to the Electoral College. But in the close election of 2000, every vote counted in the battle between Republican George Bush and Democrat Al Gore."

    Give me a break! Ignorance is absolutely no excuse. If the process is a truely bad process, then it needs to be addressed and changed, but just because the general public never took the time to actually understand how their country operates is no reason to blindly scrap a long-standing, proven system. No, it is not perfect, b

  • Here go my mod points. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kfx ( 603703 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @08:53AM (#10234413)
    This is a very "Bad Idea(TM)".

    Firstly, it defeats the entire purpose of the electoral system--which was carefully designed by the founders to ensure that the majority (large states) could not trample the opinions of the minority (small states). The thought is the same as the dual nature of the House/Senate.

    To essentially reduce the state battle to a purely popular vote will make campaigning in that state useless--as very few voters are truly undecided, the most you will gain is one EV, since the rest will vote along party lines no matter what.

    If ALL states were to adopt a pure popular vote system, thus effectively eliminating the EV system for all intents and purposes, we would be in precisely the situation the founders worked to prevent--candidates need only garner the votes of people in a few large population centers, and the votes of those in less sparesly populated areas become completely irrelevant.

    For those who argue about voting power, division of the vote into progressively smaller arenas in actuality increases your voting power. In a close election, if the tally were tied in a state, one vote in one district could switch the outcome of the election. Whereas a non-EV system would require a NATIONAL TIE for one vote to make the difference.

    The point being, voting power grows in direct proportion to the likeliness of a tie. The more you divide the election arena, the more likely your one vote will break a tie and directly affect the election's outcome.

    This is exactly the sort of system the founders indended, and if we are getting near-ties then it is working correctly!

    • Want to clarify something that you're saying:

      Yes, taking a raw percentage of the overall vote is a Bad Idea. It makes campaigning unimportant, since overall it's not likely to be a close race.

      Taking each congressional district, however might be a Good Idea. It makes campaigning more important, because each district has a greater chance of being close. Of course, then each district controls only a single EV, so you need to consider whether it's worth it.

      This paper [avagara.com] should be required reading of anyon

    • I believe Maine has a system that splits the electoral distribution by districts. The positions corresponding to the house of representatives are determined based on the vote count in those districts; those corresponding to the senate as determined based on the state count at large-- just like the senate seats. This avoids a "pure" popular vote; it's still possible to "sweep" a three-representative 9999999 voter state with only 5000001 votes-- but not very likely.

      Of course, since I'm living in a Liberal-W

    • The point being, voting power grows in direct proportion to the likeliness of a tie. The more you divide the election arena, the more likely your one vote will break a tie and directly affect the election's outcome.

      No, the more you divide the election arena, the more likely that one vote in a swing state will break a tie and directly affect the election's outcome. That's wonderful for Pennsylvania and Florida, but I live in Texas. Thus, despite the fact that this is an incredibly close election where ev

    • Re:Here go my mod points. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rhakka ( 224319 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @03:02PM (#10238538)
      I'm so tired of this arguement.

      First off, if 90% of our country lived in two states, they should have more of a say in what we do. Our forefathers had to entice small states to join the union. We don't have to deal with that now, and having a 'rural tyranny' instead of an 'urban tyranny' is not an improvement.

      Secondly, the whole idea of the electoral college does one thing and one thing only; it focused candidate attention on where they can pick up electoral votes, instead of what matters to the country as a whole. How strange both candidates are ballhooing about issues related to floridian retirement communities, eh? Joe blow in texas isn't being heard at all this time around.

      Third, the whole large vs small state thing cannot be fixed without giving rural states undue power relative to their representative populations anymore. 3 million votes or 4 electoral college votes don't really matter to Maine as far as how much attention we'll receive in a national election... unless of course, we become a true swing state and the election is close enough for 4 electoral votes to matter.

      The political climate our founding fathers had to deal with has changed. We don't need a carrot to keep small states in the union. The c continuing disenfranchisement of huge swathes of our voting populace... evident very strongly in the fact that half of our country doesn't even bother to vote anymore because it really doesn't matter at all.... is not worth the trade off.

    • You talk about the strength of a vote. I'm a liberal living in Nebraska. My vote for President will have no chance of helping Kerry win because there's no way Nebraska is going to give its electoral votes to anyone other than a Republican in the foreseeable future. If we divided up our electoral votes proportionally, or just had a direct election, my vote could actually mean something.

      You say if it was a direct election politicians would only focus on big population centers? So, wait, they wouldn't com

  • How about... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jbarr ( 2233 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @09:11AM (#10234552) Homepage
    I would REALLY like to see an enforcable nation-wide election-related media blackout during the voting period. I'm getting really tired of the media projecting or proclaiming a winner based on either exit polls or 3% of voting returns. And they present return information from the East coast prior to the closing of voting on the West coast. How fair is that? OK, I don't know if anyone has actually studied if return infromation really influences voters on election day, but it doesn't seem right.

    Oh, and I really don't buy the "Freedom of Speech" or "Freedom of the Press" arguments--the process of electing a national leader is a serious process that should not be compromised by partisan media.

    • Re:How about... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rthille ( 8526 )
      Living on the west coast, I agree with the annoyance that the press is predicting the outcome before I've left the house that morning to vote :-)
      However, I'll side with the freedom of the press anyday. After all, on the day before, press coverage of the fact that canidate A is 10 points ahead in the hugely flawed poll has a slight chance of of influencing a vote on the next day, so we need to move that blackout back further...
      Freedom is (to me) more important than anything else. Freedom is more important th

      • Re:How about... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by jbarr ( 2233 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @11:13AM (#10235832) Homepage
        I guess my real frustration is that "news" has somehow shifted from "reporting" to "marketing and editorializing" forsaking the accuracy and reliability of what's being reported. I too put freedom above all else in this country, but I believe that with freedom comes responsibility, and I believe that the news media is not being responsible. And the problem is that there is really no way to enforce responsibility.

        I still stand by the statement, "Just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it right to do."

      • Re:How about... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Blakey Rat ( 99501 )
        Simple solution:

        Voting opens at 10:00 AM in EST
        Voting opens at 6:00 AM in PST
        And I'm sure you can fill in the blanks.

        Then when the day is getting near, the election closes exactly 12 hours after it started.

        It opens at the exact same moment in the entire US, and closes at the exact same moment in the entire US, and there's no way the press can be blamed for calling the election. (Sure, they'll call it around noonish, but people in PST have an even chance to be in the exit poll that way.)

        Of course, this

    • I really don't buy the "Freedom of Speech" or "Freedom of the Press" arguments--the process of electing a national leader is a serious process that should not be compromised by partisan media.

      Better to have NO media observation or inquiry for something so important? Wouldn't that make election rigging or fraud much easier?

      There is no such thing as non-partisan media. Better to have multiple, partisan voices than to have Big Brother's Ministry of Truth as the sole source of election news! This is EXACTLY
  • Colorado's proposed Amendment 36 [lawanddemocracy.org] intends to divvy up the state's nine EC votes proportional to the popular vote. In other words, each 11.1% wins you an additional EC vote.

    In practice, this will mean that in most cases only one, or perhaps two, EC vote will be up for grabs, because few elections see the winner win (assuming a two-person race) more than 55.6% of the voting electorate, and fewer still with 66.7%. The losing side will be almost certain to win at least three and quite likely four EC votes, no
    • This, of course, will mean that Colorado will immediately become the least-interesting state of the Union to Presidential candidates

      You are incorrect in this statement, but only by manner of being incomplete. It will be the least interesting state to the Democratic and Republican party candidates. To the third parties, this suddenly becomes the MOST interesting state. It's the only realistic way to get electoral votes.
  • A group opposed to this plan has a wonderful name: "Coloradans Against a Really Stupid Idea"

    Tee hee.

  • Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

    Expect this to be challenged in court and to make it to the Supreme Court if it turns out that Colorado's electoral votes are going to be key in this election. Th

    • does a state constitution that allows voter initiatives effectively make every voter in the state a member of the state's legislature?

      No, but the initiative process was approved of by the state legislature, which is good enough. That is, the state legislature granted the voters the power to do it.

      The real legal challenge here will be whether changing the rules after the fact is legal. They can make this change for next election, but my guess is not for this one, which is what they are trying to do.

      • the initiative process was approved of by the state legislature, which is good enough.

        That, I think, is what would end up in court.

        The first question would be where the authority to make constitutional changes originated. If it was in the original constitution (not written by the legislature of the state) and the legislature doesn't have to be involved, then it may be a moot point - the Federal Constitution overrides the state one.

        The second question would be whether, if it has done so, the state legi

        • That, I think, is what would end up in court.

          Courts allow power to be proxied out like this all the time (witness regulatory powers granted to e.g. the FCC). I really think this is a boring question. What if the state legislature authors the initiative? Then is it Constitutional for the people to vote on it? And if so -- as I think it clearly is -- how is this different from the state legislature opening it up more and allowing other people to write it? The power still belongs to the state legislatur
  • In a word, yes, it is too much to ask. The Electoral College was part of the series of compromises that closed the deal on the Constitution in 1787. It was one of the ways that the Constitution balances the interests of small states against big states.

    It would be particularly stupid for us in Colorado to do it unilaterally, since the effect would be to make Colorado the least important state in the electoral college.

    (If it's not intuitive why, think about the two cases: a very big margin, and a very tig
  • Instead of controlling 9 electoral votes each election, candidates would only be competing over 1 or 2 electoral votes in each election. Republicans would be guaranteed to get 4, and democrats would be guaranteed to get 3 or 4. The result would be that nobody would campaign there.

  • Nothing new (Score:2, Insightful)

    by daevt ( 100407 )
    If Colorado were to pass such a bill, it would be the third state to award electoral votes this way.
    • Nope. It would be the first. The others, Maine and Nebraska, divide up in a winner take all based on the voters district. This is why Nebraska went all for Bush in 2000.

  • Uh (Score:2)

    by pudge ( 3605 ) *
    Is it too much to ask of our technology/math skills to award electorial votes in proportion to the popular vote?

    The two are completely unrelated.

    Also, it is very likely this initiative, if passed, would be illegal to apply to the current election. But don't worry: the Democrats are simultaneously supporting the initiative, and preparing a legal attack to subvert it, should Kerry win the state's popular vote.
  • I see one major problem with the observations forwarded by most opponents of this proposal. That is, they assume that because there is a 52/43 Republican advantage in Colorado it will always be that way. They assume other states will not change to a similar system, and they assume that we'll always have this notion that the Electors we choose are "locked in" on a particular candidate. None of these assumptions are terribly sound.

    (Yes, 52+43=95)
  • This country is not a democracy and never has been. If you think it is, you have really missed the boat. Democracies, by their very nature, can't survive because they don't take human nature into account.

    We need to retain the electoral college. If we don't then New York and California combine are going to outvote the rest of the country. At that point, we will be as screwed as a nation as those two states.

    I doubt this would work on a Federal level any ways. The presidential election is a federal one, t
  • This is the worst kind of Gerrymandering I have seen. You get to vote and then try to vote in how your vote will be counted? And all because it could have won the election for you in 2000. Please. As others have pointed out its not even the legal way of doing this, as the legislature has to determine how the vote will be counted as outlined in the Constitution. To allow this to work would require an amendment to the constitution, and that wont happen between now and November.

    Has anyone run the numbers
  • Each state chose or changed to an all-or-nothing electorial college system to increase the power of the state as compared to other states. If the difference for a canidate between getting 51% and 49% of the popular vote in a state is vast, the difference between one additional electorial vote, or ALL the electorial votes in a given state, then the canidate is more likely to focus more attention in that state and support policies more beneficial to that state.

    -- Greg
  • Election districts are entirely products of gerrymandering: majority parties design district boundaries to dilute their opponents, while empowering their own candidates, to perpetuate their power. These districts should not be designed by unaccountable politicians. They are simple demographic/geographic entities, and should be designed by simple universal rules to ensure the sampling methods of our ballots are accurate models of the people.

    Each state should be mapped as an area cartogram [u-tokyo.ac.jp], made up of smalle
  • Way to "progressivly" make your state redundant. Don't expect ANY federal help, any campeigning, anything. Why? Because you've reduced your state from nine points to one, two at the most. Shit, time would be better spent in Rhode Island. At least it wouldn't take so long to get to a real state that really counts.

    The whole point of the electoral college is to make lower-population states have a say in the federal government. Or do we REALLY want california and New York to make all the rules? I know

  • One of the advantages of the current system is that it limits the effects of election fraud. Even if there is widespread election fraud in New York, it isn't going to affect the electoral results in other states. In a national popular vote, every stuffed ballot box has the potential to change the result.
  • In fact, most of the least populous states will never receive a visit or serious attention from the major party candidates because so many of those states are solidly R or D. In Idaho, I can't recall any visits from pres candidates because we're already chalked up in the "R" column by both parties. And Ohio will likely receive more attention than every Western state combined this year. A popular vote would increase the chance of voters in small states having their voices heard. I found a good op-ed by the
  • Colorado Republicans are worried that Kerry might win Colorado [realclearpolitics.com], so this is designed to help Bush.

    I'd like to see a modest change to the EC. The winner within a Congressional District in a state gets the EV for that House seat. The winner of the entire state gets 2 EVs for the Senate seats. This forces the presidential race to be a little more local in the bigger states and forces both sides to campaign in states where they have significant minorities even though they are likely to lose across the enti

Slashdot Top Deals

Pascal is not a high-level language. -- Steven Feiner

Close