10.19.2004
The Electoral College and Colorado
"I keep hearing that there will be law suits in Colorado if its voters vote on November 2 to divide the electoral vote according to the popular vote and do away with the all or nothing approach. I think I've heard a few other states do this now or are also wanting to change how their electoral votes go. I'm sure there will be more written about the electoral vote in the days to come because it became such an issue in the last election. What are your thoughts on this issue and the electoral college in general?" Erin Samuelsen
Thanks, Erin! I appreciated your comments and question. I've thought about it a little, and did a touch of 'look-in-to' on the subject. I'm against changing our Constitution by anything short of a Constitutional Amendment. The Electoral College has been a favorite whipping child of poplulist Democrats for a while now, but they became incensed by the idea following 2000.
First, what exactly is the college? See Article Two of the United States Constitution, and this history. It is the way the American President is chosen, as opposed to the popular vote. Since the Constitution was implemented, all American presidents have been chosen this way.
Each state is given one elector for each of its Senators (two), and then one vote per congressional district. Currently 48 states take the 'all or nothing' approach: in other words, the candidate who wins the popular vote takes all of that states electoral votes. There are a total of 538 electoral votes, and a candidate must secure 270 of them to be elected.
Maine (since 1968) and Nebraska (1992) are different, and permittedly so. Electors are allocated according to the popular vote in each congressional district. As well, the overall winner in the state's popular vote gets the two Senate votes as well.
The most enduring (and endearing) feature of the college is that it is designed to prevent big states (i.e., high population centers) from domineering the election because of sheer number. It tends to force a candidate to win votes over a large geographic area. Although the electoral college has generally and historically respected the popular vote, it can produce results like we saw in 2000, where Gore won 48.38% of the vote to W's 47.87. Other people raise the criticism that - in some states - where the outcome of a race is certain - minority party voters are not as likely to exercise their vote...
There is a ballot initiative in Colorado - Amendment 36 - which would distribute the state's nine electoral votes according to a popular vote. For instance, if Kerry were to win 51% of the vote, he would receive five of the votes, and Bush four. The way the amendment is written, it would take effect THIS YEAR.
What is problematic with this change, if it passes, is that the law could not be in place prior to the election. Federal law requires all election laws to be in place prior to an election! Furthermore, it seems an awfully big incentive for mischief. You and I both know that there will be no end to lawsuits in Colorado, and they will reach the Supremes before it is over. It is also rather frightful to imagine if this sort of thing takes hold and rolls across the land, state by state. Without uniformity, we might witness a sort of Balkanization of the the Presidential election process.
"If Colorado approves this process and it withstands judicial scrutiny, the face of presidential elections in the country will begin to change as political forces in other states will begin to look at alterations to their state's electoral college vote distribution," writes Bob Martin, of the Montgomery Independent.
The populist will that we are witnessing, I strongly believe, is the erosion of civility in this country, and of the long-standing, cherished respect for its institutions. As Ferd pointed out below your original comment, he is a red-stater and thus very comfortable with the status quo, which he will argue is only doing what it was designed to do...
Other sources for this post: BBC News article. This is one of the better written descriptions of the college; it is clear, short, and very informative. The Casey and Owens quotes are from this MSNBC article. This article in Human Events Online.
"I keep hearing that there will be law suits in Colorado if its voters vote on November 2 to divide the electoral vote according to the popular vote and do away with the all or nothing approach. I think I've heard a few other states do this now or are also wanting to change how their electoral votes go. I'm sure there will be more written about the electoral vote in the days to come because it became such an issue in the last election. What are your thoughts on this issue and the electoral college in general?" Erin Samuelsen
Thanks, Erin! I appreciated your comments and question. I've thought about it a little, and did a touch of 'look-in-to' on the subject. I'm against changing our Constitution by anything short of a Constitutional Amendment. The Electoral College has been a favorite whipping child of poplulist Democrats for a while now, but they became incensed by the idea following 2000.
First, what exactly is the college? See Article Two of the United States Constitution, and this history. It is the way the American President is chosen, as opposed to the popular vote. Since the Constitution was implemented, all American presidents have been chosen this way.
Each state is given one elector for each of its Senators (two), and then one vote per congressional district. Currently 48 states take the 'all or nothing' approach: in other words, the candidate who wins the popular vote takes all of that states electoral votes. There are a total of 538 electoral votes, and a candidate must secure 270 of them to be elected.
Maine (since 1968) and Nebraska (1992) are different, and permittedly so. Electors are allocated according to the popular vote in each congressional district. As well, the overall winner in the state's popular vote gets the two Senate votes as well.
The most enduring (and endearing) feature of the college is that it is designed to prevent big states (i.e., high population centers) from domineering the election because of sheer number. It tends to force a candidate to win votes over a large geographic area. Although the electoral college has generally and historically respected the popular vote, it can produce results like we saw in 2000, where Gore won 48.38% of the vote to W's 47.87. Other people raise the criticism that - in some states - where the outcome of a race is certain - minority party voters are not as likely to exercise their vote...
There is a ballot initiative in Colorado - Amendment 36 - which would distribute the state's nine electoral votes according to a popular vote. For instance, if Kerry were to win 51% of the vote, he would receive five of the votes, and Bush four. The way the amendment is written, it would take effect THIS YEAR.
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.
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 wouldn’t have the ability to compete for the federal dollars, for highways, for base closings,” he said.
What is problematic with this change, if it passes, is that the law could not be in place prior to the election. Federal law requires all election laws to be in place prior to an election! Furthermore, it seems an awfully big incentive for mischief. You and I both know that there will be no end to lawsuits in Colorado, and they will reach the Supremes before it is over. It is also rather frightful to imagine if this sort of thing takes hold and rolls across the land, state by state. Without uniformity, we might witness a sort of Balkanization of the the Presidential election process.
"If Colorado approves this process and it withstands judicial scrutiny, the face of presidential elections in the country will begin to change as political forces in other states will begin to look at alterations to their state's electoral college vote distribution," writes Bob Martin, of the Montgomery Independent.
The populist will that we are witnessing, I strongly believe, is the erosion of civility in this country, and of the long-standing, cherished respect for its institutions. As Ferd pointed out below your original comment, he is a red-stater and thus very comfortable with the status quo, which he will argue is only doing what it was designed to do...
Other sources for this post: BBC News article. This is one of the better written descriptions of the college; it is clear, short, and very informative. The Casey and Owens quotes are from this MSNBC article. This article in Human Events Online.
Comments:
<< Home
Thanks for the post. Being the traditionalist that I am, I favor the electoral college system over a purely popular vote. Eradicating the electoral college would be a good way to melt the individuality amongst the states. It speaks well for our country that every election has survived peacefully depite the potential for mayhem. 2000 sparked much debate and maybe a few protests/riots as I'm sure did the other handful of elections where the electoral college was called into question. The Founding Fathers were soothsayers in a sense.
It will be interesting to see whether more states follow the lead of Nebraska and Maine. I wonder why Colorado waited until now to put the proposal on the ballot.
It will be interesting to see whether more states follow the lead of Nebraska and Maine. I wonder why Colorado waited until now to put the proposal on the ballot.
Hunter Byrd, I wrote the last comment but hit the send button before I was finished. To sum up, it will be interesting watching this issue in the years to come. I would prefer just to keep the all-or-nothing system. Thanks again for the reply. Erin Samuelsen
Post a Comment
<< Home