Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/5/2004 8:40:42 AM EST
We have a measure on the ballot here in CO that will split our electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote. I cannot even begin to describe how pissed this measure makes me. In almost every realistic vote count, our 9 electoral votes will be split 5/4. This means that no matter how hard a candidate works at campaigning in CO, the most electoral votes that they can hope to gain would be one. One fucking electoral vote! No candidate in their right mind would spend any time or effort on CO. Nor would they give a shit about issues that matter to us Coloradoans. CO would be completely and totally marginalized in the Presidential election.

And for what? The demos got this onto the ballot because it is expected that Bush will take CO and they will do anything to give him less votes. So for 4 less votes for Bush, the demos are willing to sell out CO's future in having any influence in the Presidential election. I ALMOST can't believe that they are willing to do this to us just do take 4 votes away from Bush, but they are. Traitorous fucking scum.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 8:41:58 AM EST
will the measure effect this election?
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 8:42:32 AM EST
Would this be Constitutional?
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 8:44:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:
will the measure effect this election?



Yes, it is specifically worded to affect the outcome of this election.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 8:44:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Would this be Constitutional?



Don't know. If it passes, I sure hope that someone challenges it.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 8:44:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Would this be Constitutional?



Yes.

Article II, Section 1: "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..."{emphasis added}
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 8:44:47 AM EST

Your state is being marginalized!
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 8:45:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By thelastgunslinger:

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:
will the measure effect this election?



Yes, it is specifically worded to affect the outcome of this election.

interesting......you have any ideas on the chances of it passing?
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 8:46:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Originally Posted By thelastgunslinger:

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:
will the measure effect this election?



Yes, it is specifically worded to affect the outcome of this election.

interesting......you have any ideas on the chances of it passing?



I haven't found anything yet, but I am looking.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 9:11:28 AM EST
The only poll results that I found showed it passing...
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 9:15:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By Pete841:
home.comcast.net/~peter11/haha.jpg
Your state is being marginalized!



Trace the funding for this third trimester abortion of a referendum.

If it passes here in CO, it'll be coming soon to a theatre near you.

Ha Ha, indeed.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 9:15:39 AM EST
There are some (at least one) state(s) that allow their EV's to be split. I think one/it's in New England. Anybody know which one(s)?
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 9:16:12 AM EST
And Kerry called the Republicans the "most lying, crooked bunch" he's ever seen!

These bastards only like the rules when they support the leftist agenda, and when the rules contradict the leftist agenda they simply make up new rules.

The left is destroying our country!
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 9:18:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By PONY_DRIVER:
There are some (at least one) state(s) that allow their EV's to be split. I think one/it's in New England. Anybody know which one(s)?



Maine, and one other state, i forget which.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 9:19:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By Yankee1911:

Originally Posted By Pete841:
home.comcast.net/~peter11/haha.jpg
Your state is being marginalized!



Trace the funding for this third trimester abortion of a referendum.

If it passes here in CO, it'll be coming soon to a theatre near you.

Ha Ha, indeed.



Yup. It is a rich-ass democrat behind it. They will be coming for your state too, be on the lookout. If it does pass here, and the demos start trying to enact it in other states that lean Republican, the Republicans will have no choice but to start working to pass the same type of legislation in demo states. Then, the entire electoral system is destroyed. Thanks fuckers.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 9:21:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By Yankee1911:

Originally Posted By Pete841:
home.comcast.net/~peter11/haha.jpg
Your state is being marginalized!



Trace the funding for this third trimester abortion of a referendum.

If it passes here in CO, it'll be coming soon to a theatre near you.

Ha Ha, indeed.



Oh you must be one of those people who thinks their state sets trends for the country. Like those arrogant California people, always telling us "oh our state passed a law and its coming to YOU next cuz everybody does what california does cuz we are the best at everything and your tiny hillbilly state cant do anything but try to follow our lead."
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 9:21:50 AM EST
I haven't seen any poll results on this hideous idea either.

The news always relates how if this split were in effect last election Gore would have won. Pretty well tells you who is behind this thing.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 9:22:42 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/5/2004 9:25:31 AM EST by PAEBR332]

Originally Posted By iamblades:

Originally Posted By PONY_DRIVER:
There are some (at least one) state(s) that allow their EV's to be split. I think one/it's in New England. Anybody know which one(s)?



Maine, and one other state, i forget which.



Maine and Nebraska. In both of those, the EC is awarded partially by House district (win the House district, you get the Elector for that district), partially by who carries the state(carry the state overall, you get two more Electors).

Now Colorado can join them as being politically irrelevant.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 9:28:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bumblebee_Bob:
I haven't seen any poll results on this hideous idea either.

The news always relates how if this split were in effect last election Gore would have won. Pretty well tells you who is behind this thing.



This article describes who is behind it. No suprise, its a billionaire with strong ties to the demo party. To the poster above who thinks that something like this can't happen in their state: That is precisely the attitude that will allow it to happen. These are not Coloradoans who are behind this, it is outsiders who saw an opportunity to influence the Presidential election. If they spot a similar opportunity in your state, they will be there with the gloves off.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 9:32:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By Pete841:

Originally Posted By Yankee1911:

Originally Posted By Pete841:
home.comcast.net/~peter11/haha.jpg
Your state is being marginalized!



Trace the funding for this third trimester abortion of a referendum.

If it passes here in CO, it'll be coming soon to a theatre near you.

Ha Ha, indeed.



Oh you must be one of those people who thinks their state sets trends for the country. Like those arrogant California people, always telling us "oh our state passed a law and its coming to YOU next cuz everybody does what california does cuz we are the best at everything and your tiny hillbilly state cant do anything but try to follow our lead."



I said all of that?
Cool!!!

Whether you choose to believe it or not, if it passes here, that won't be the end of it.
As I said, trace the funding.

Link Posted: 10/5/2004 9:34:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Would this be Constitutional?



Yes.

Article II, Section 1: "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..."{emphasis added}



That deals with how the Electors are selected, not how they vote.

Amazing how these assholes just can't seem to win an election fairly.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 9:35:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By thelastgunslinger:

Originally Posted By Bumblebee_Bob:
I haven't seen any poll results on this hideous idea either.

The news always relates how if this split were in effect last election Gore would have won. Pretty well tells you who is behind this thing.



This article describes who is behind it. No suprise, its a billionaire with strong ties to the demo party. To the poster above who thinks that something like this can't happen in their state: That is precisely the attitude that will allow it to happen. These are not Coloradoans who are behind this, it is outsiders who saw an opportunity to influence the Presidential election. If they spot a similar opportunity in your state, they will be there with the gloves off.



This is why the Founders believed Democracy was bad, and Republics were good. They made us a Republic. The mob is easily swayed by temporary passions.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 10:08:15 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/5/2004 10:16:47 AM EST by Shooter505]
This article should address many of issues that are being discussed here. One big problem we have here in Colorado is the fact that it is very easy to get a referendum vote on the ballot.


Link

Split Colorado's electoral votes?
Voters to decide measure to allocate votes by presidential candidates' popular result


By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
MSNBC
Updated: 12:28 p.m. ET Sept. 27, 2004


DENVER, Colo. - Colorado will be the focal point on Election Day for one of the most intriguing proposed changes in American presidential politics since women were given the right to vote.

Facing Colorado voters on Nov. 2: a ballot measure to change the state constitution so that Colorado’s nine electoral votes would be allocated in proportion to the popular vote in the state instead of a winner-take-all basis. Colorado and 47 other states now use the winner-take-all method in presidential elections.

If approved by voters, Colorado’s measure could begin a state-by-state change in the electoral vote system, without proponents having to go to the trouble of attempting to amend the U.S. Constitution.

If George Bush got 52 percent of the popular vote in Colorado on Nov. 2, he’d be allocated five electoral votes instead of all nine.

If Democratic candidate John Kerry got 47 percent of the Colorado vote, he’d get four electoral votes, instead of none.


Were it to be approved by the voters and upheld by the courts, the ballot measure could boost Kerry, currently trailing in the latest Colorado poll at 39 percent.

But it could also conceivably cost Kerry the election, if he were locked in a close race and got only five of the state’s electoral votes.

Sue Casey, the state director for the Kerry campaign in Colorado, voiced exasperation with the measure: “I think it’s an esoteric, insider thing.”

She added, “I’m hoping that we win in Colorado and get nine electoral votes. There is no way you want to go all out and win a state — and then find out that you didn’t win the state.”

Colorado’s Republican Gov. Bill Owens is also critical of the measure and will be mobilizing opposition to it. Owens said the measure would make Colorado insignificant by diminishing the incentive for presidential candidates to pay attention to the state.

“For Colorado, for the next 100 years we would’t have the ability to compete for the federal dollars, for highways, for base closings,” he said.

Helping lead the charge for the measure, called Amendment 36, is Democratic consultant Rick Ridder, a veteran of the Howard Dean campaign.

Julie Brown, the campaign director of Make Your Vote Count, the Denver-based group pushing the measure, said the idea began in 2001, when a Democratic state legislator from Boulder, Ron Tupa, proposed a bill to allocate Colorado’s electoral votes as Maine and Nebraska do: the popular vote winner would get two electoral votes and the winner of the rest of the state’s electoral votes would be determined by who carried each congressional district.

Tupa’s bill died in the legislature, so activists turned to the idea of a ballot measure.

'Fairest possible way'
“The statewide popular vote is the fairest possible way to do it,” said Brown. “What this is really about is making everybody’s vote in the state count equally. When you send nine people to the Electoral College and at least four of them don’t represent the state, it’s not fair, it’s not democratic.”

She added, “Contrary to popular belief, this is a non-partisan issue. We have had nothing to do with the Democratic Party on this.” She also said, “We have had no discussions with the Kerry campaign.”

Denver pollster Floyd Ciruli found in a Sept. 14-Sept. 18 survey of 600 likely voters that 51 percent supported the proposal, while 31 percent opposed it and 18 percent were undecided.

“In my opinion, that means it’s in trouble,” Ciruli said. Why? “For the most part, at this point there is very little advertising up for these amendments yet. Early voting starts here about Oct. 10. That’s when the big ads start. If you look at every other ballot issue in the polls, they are at 60 percent support or better.”

Leading the opposition to the measure is veteran Republican consultant Katy Atkinson, who has run initiative efforts in the past, including one to defeat Election Day voter registration.

Atkinson agreed with Ciruli that based on past ballot measure history the proposal looks unlikely to be approved.

Assessing poll results
“The rule in initiative campaigns is that if they come in on the first poll with under 55 or 60 percent on the proponents’ side, they’re in big trouble. The first poll gives the voters their initial impression, before they’ve heard any arguments against it; that’s normally the peak. It’s very difficult to build support while the other side is shooting at you,” she said.

“It looks so grossly partisan; it is sponsored by a Democratic operation with one of the big Democratic consultants in town (Ridder) with out-of-state money,” Ciruli said. “The Republicans will be overwhelmingly against it.”

Even if it wins, the measure is certain to be challenged in the courts due to questions about its constitutionality.

Article II of the Constitution says “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.”

The Colorado ballot measure is being voted on by the people directly, not by the state legislature. But Denver attorney Mark Grueskin, who drafted the measure, said there are Supreme Court precedents supporting the idea of the people being the ultimate authority in such electoral law cases.

Much of the funding of the effort to pass the ballot measure has come from Jorge Klor de Alva, a California resident and a business executive who heads a firm called Apollo International, which is linked to Apollo Group, parent company of the University of Phoenix.

The founder of the Apollo group is Dr. John Sperling, who has been a major Democratic donor, giving thousands of dollars to candidates from John Kerry to Howard Dean.

Klor de Alva has contributed to the campaigns of two Democratic congressional candidates.

A national harbinger?
Given some Americans’ puzzlement with the electoral mechanics that allow one candidate to receive the most votes nationwide and not win the electoral vote, one might expect that Colorado could be the harbinger of a national movement if the measure is approved by the voters.

But Atkinson is skeptical: She said only 16 states allow ballot initiatives and state legislators in the other states would not be likely to undertake electoral vote-splitting on their own.

If what the proponents were most concerned about was starting a national trend, Atkinson said, “They could have made this take effect in 2008, instead of in this presidential election. Or they could also have put a trigger in that said it took effect in Colorado after a certain number of the states adopted. Colorado would have been on the leading edge, but would not put itself at a huge disadvantage.”

But Brown said what other states do will not affect her support for Colorado proposal. “If you told me that no other state was going to do this and Colorado was going to be the only state to do this, I would still be working just as hard to pass it.”

© 2004 MSNBC Interactive
URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6106804/
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 10:20:51 AM EST
I believe Maines EV's are split into two "districts".
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 11:12:25 AM EST
I have NO doubt the constitutionality of this measure will be challenged one minute after it becomes Colorado law.

And I have a feeling that it will not withstand the challenge.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 11:33:46 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 12:22:53 PM EST
Really You should be in favor of this measure. Really. It is much more democratic way of doing things. Maine already does it. all it does is divide the "ellectorial college" votes between the candidates based on percentage of the vote. You know, ONE PERSON ONE VOTE!! none of this electorial 'winner take all' college crap. Now I know you might sweat because it helped Bush last time but it go the other way where kerry wins the electorial map but gets less of the popular vote. Also it equalises the campaign. Instead of just pouring money into a few 'swing states' the candidates would have to try and get votes everywhere not just in a few states! For example, In New York We have 31 Electorial votes. As it stands now kerry will win with 10% more votes and get ALL the 31 votes. But in the reformed system the votes would be split between the candidates. So Kerry would get like 18 votes and Bush would get 14. See how it works? All the Republicans who voted for bush would not have their votes 'thrown away' by having all the electorial votes go Just for Kerry. But heres the big problem, This reform must go to all the states at once. If only a few states do it then the map will become imbalanced. With unreformed states giving more votes to a candidate than he deserves. It must start at the federal level.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 12:27:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By t-stox:
Really You should be in favor of this measure. Really. It is much more democratic way of doing things. Maine already does it. all it does is divide the "ellectorial college" votes between the candidates based on percentage of the vote. You know, ONE PERSON ONE VOTE!! none of this electorial 'winner take all' college crap. Now I know you might sweat because it helped Bush last time but it go the other way where kerry wins the electorial map but gets less of the popular vote. Also it equalises the campaign. Instead of just pouring money into a few 'swing states' the candidates would have to try and get votes everywhere not just in a few states! For example, In New York We have 31 Electorial votes. As it stands now kerry will win with 10% more votes and get ALL the 31 votes. But in the reformed system the votes would be split between the candidates. So Kerry would get like 18 votes and Bush would get 14. See how it works? All the Republicans who voted for bush would not have their votes 'thrown away' by having all the electorial votes go Just for Kerry. But heres the big problem, This reform must go to all the states at once. If only a few states do it then the map will become imbalanced. With unreformed states giving more votes to a candidate than he deserves. It must start at the federal level.



I understand perfectly well how the system works, thank you very much. The reason that I do not want it here is, as I stated before, becuase the only realistic outcome of any election will split CO's 9 electoral votes 5/4. If the most a candidate can gain by shifting the vote in CO is one lousy vote, then they won't even bother with the state. How can I possibly look at that as a good thing?
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 12:30:23 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 12:32:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lightfighter:
So, get someone to split Calaifornia's EC. Same game, better result.



Find a billionaire to back the effort, and I am all for it.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 12:44:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lightfighter:
So, get someone to split Calaifornia's EC. Same game, better result.



I wish they would. Either by popular vote or winner take all by county even. the current winner take all system sucks.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 12:52:01 PM EST
If we had a national straight out popular vote for National office and a close election, the recouning of votes would go on for years.

Try to picture the "Florida 2004" times 50.

Regards,

Mild Bill
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 1:08:08 PM EST

the current winner take all system sucks.


AMEN BROTHER!!!


If we had a national straight out popular vote for National office and a close election, the recouning of votes would go on for years.

Try to picture the "Florida 2004" times 50.




Total BS!! Most western countries vote by direct election. And it seems to work for them. Even France does it that way. Are you saying theres something france can do that we cant?? What are you a commie pinko?? A METROSEXUAL?? just kidding...............
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 1:19:07 PM EST
Yankee1911 is right.

If it passes here, more will be seeing this attempt made in the future.

And it doesn't help much to rail against the idea by being defensive about your state.

Whether people from CO (or CA) are arrogant or not is irrelevant in this case.

Link Posted: 10/5/2004 5:31:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By t-stox:

the current winner take all system sucks.


AMEN BROTHER!!!


If we had a national straight out popular vote for National office and a close election, the recouning of votes would go on for years.

Try to picture the "Florida 2004" times 50.




Total BS!! Most western countries vote by direct election. And it seems to work for them. Even France does it that way. Are you saying theres something france can do that we cant?? What are you a commie pinko?? A METROSEXUAL?? just kidding...............



The fact that it is done way in those socialist countries makes me even more certain that our system is superior.
Top Top