Colorado Tinkering With Electoral Votes

• August 18, 2004

I think this is a good idea:

DENVER (AP) — A plan to scrap the winner-take-all system of allocating electoral votes in Colorado is heading to the ballot in November.
If passed, Amendment 36 would make Colorado the first state to allocate electoral votes proportionately according to the popular vote, rather than giving a winner all of the state’s electoral votes.
Secretary of State Donetta Davidson said Friday that supporters have gathered enough signatures to put the measure on the November ballot.
If the proposal had been in place four years ago, Democrat Al Gore would have earned enough electoral votes to go to the White House.

Despite the fact that measures such as these would have lost the election for Bush in 2000, the winner-take-all policy for electoral votes in states just isn’t a good way to represent the wishes of the voters. A proportionate distribution of electoral votes based on the popular vote will allow for the minority opinion in a state to be heard on the national level.
To be honest I’d like to see this country do away with the electoral college altogether and go to a straight popular vote. The electoral college was a solution for an age where communication technology didn’t exist and nation-wide popular elections were simply impossible. But America isn’t in the 19th century any more. Its time to do away with 19th century solutions and embrace true democracy.

Tags: General

http://Array Remy Logan

RE: "The electoral college was a solution for an age where …"

This is a myth that has been perpetuated by those who want to do away with our somewhat unique concept of state government that is independent of federal government. What is true about 19th Century communication shortcomings is that the Inauguration was held in April so that all of the parties had time to get to the Capitol and do a turnover.

The Electoral College, along with our two houses of Congress, was the only way to get the small states to agree to join the Union. The small states (such as Delaware) were concerned that the big states (New York & Virginia) would ride roughshod over the small states. They agreed to join only after the Senate was included as a part of the Congress, and the Electoral College was instituted. Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and others fought vociferously against both concepts, arguing that government should only be set up along the lines of popular will. If the small states had not won on these two points, the Constitutional Congress would have failed and disbanded. The original Articles of Confederation, adopted after the Revolutionary War, would have stayed in effect, and the U.S. as we know it would have not come about, and we could very well have ended up with a system similar to Canada's (yuck).

The concept of state's rights took a blow when the South started defending the institution of slavery as a state right. We fought a bloody war to prove them wrong. That doesn't mean however, that the rights and interests of states aren't still valid. The Electoral College protects those rigths.

It's one thing to argue for a popular vote because you believe in a strictly proportional representation in government. But, bolstering your argument by calling the Electoral College an anachronism is an error. As far as proportional representation, this is the method of government that Kofi Annan and all of Europe feel is best. Looking at the results, I prefer our system.
http://txfx.net/ Mark J

Scenario 1: Popular vote. Mormons are spread about the country. Because they don't represent a huge number of Americans, their votes get swallowed up in a popular election.

Scenario 2: Electoral College. Mormons all move to one state (Utah) and control that state's electoral votes, giving them a much more persuasive voice on election day.

The Electoral College was created to protect minority groups. Look at the breakdown of the last election by county. In a popular contest, Al Gore would have basically been elected by New York City, Los Angeles, and Miami.

The Electoral College allows people of similar beliefs to move to a state where their beliefs are upheld (like, with Missouri and their recent gay marriage ban). This also means that they are given a stronger voice in presidential elections. But because the electoral votes aren't allocated strictly based on population, Rhode Island will never have only 1 electoral vote, and thus will retain a voice in the election no matter how low its population might drop.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Colorado Tinkering With Electoral Votes

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments