Redstate

"..It is never popular when the losing candidate, like Gore, wins the popular vote and loses the electoral college..."

In the immortal words of George H.W. Bush 'read my lips', there is no such thing as the popular vote.

I know you know this, but unless people make an effort to stamp out this bit of silliness it just continues  to get perpetuated.

I think you've mischaracterized the Colorado proposal.

The electoral votes in Colorado would be split proportionally based on the popular vote.  If one candidate gets 80% of the popular vote, that candidate gets approximately 80% of the electoral vote.  The 5/4 split is a prediction of how the vote would turn out in the upcoming presidential election.  Colorado's electoral clout would not be permanently reduced to an in-effect single vote.

Also -- as you point out, this would cut both ways.  In California, Republicans might gain a substantial proportion of that state's electoral votes, more than outweighing the loss of some of Colorado's.  How does this equate to "things spinning out of control"?

You state that the one result would be that some states would no longer get attention from the candidates.  I submit that the result would be that all states would get a more equal distribution of attention.  Candidates would no longer "write off" certain states because they are likely to have a majority in one direction or the other.  Candidates could, and would, work for every electoral vote.

Maine and Nebraska do this now, and the union has survived.  Both of those states have a policy that the winner gets a two-vote bonus, which helps address the small state/big state issue frequently cited when discussing the electoral college.

I think the Colorado proposal is an excellent one, and I hope more states take it up.

Cheers -

I will acknowledge a legitimate argument for changing ALL states to work by this system.  Then Colorado will not be handicapping itself.  (I still think such a national shift would be a bad idea.  Candidates still have to pick and choose where to campaign--blame the space/time continuum if you wish.  Little states, especially those smaller than Colorado, will be ignored.)

You yourself misrepresent a few things.  First, Maine and Nebraska do not have this same system.  At most, a second-place candidate could get one vote from Maine.

More importantly, your characterization of the merits of this system is entirely dependent upon every state from California on down taking up this system.  But the plain fact is that for the 2004 election this will only happen in Colorado.  A principled argument could be made for applying the amendment to 2008 and beyond.  As it is, this is a calculated partisan ploy to shift some potentially decisive votes from George Bush and give them to John Kerry, and the purveyors of this slimy plan are depending on well-meaning people like yourself to help them out and vote for it because, gosh, wouldn't it be nice if every state did this?

Chris -

After reading your original post, I looked at some articles on the Colorado initiative to see what it was about.  My understanding of the policy in Maine and Nebraska comes from this article in USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/state/colorado/2004-08-16-co
lo-electoral_x.htm

From the article it sounds like both Maine and Nebraska have a system where the overall winner gets two electoral votes (those corresponding to their Senate seats), then the rest are proportionally divided according to the results in each electoral district.  If I've misunderstood, or if the information in the USA Today article is incorrect, my apologies.

I stand by my opinion.  The Colorado proposal seems like a good one to me.  The fact that there is an electoral college at all guarantees that small states will not be neglected -- because of the way electoral votes are allocated, small states always have a higher proportion of electors than larger states, relative to their respective populations.  That will not change.  What will change is that states that have a clear majority in one direction or the other will no longer be neglected.  Republicans, for instance, might campaign in Massachusetts, where they could probably pick up two or three electors, rather than just write off all 12 automatically to the Democrats.  I would see this as a good thing -- no more exclusive catering to the "battleground" states.

If enacted this year, the CO proposal might be beneficial to Kerry, or not.  Anytime any state makes a change like this, it will be beneficial to one party or another.  You can't not do it for that reason.

Amos, you are making the point that if all states enacted a similar law it would make campaigning more fair. Ok, under that premise (which is not the reality today or the near future), I could buy that argument. [I still disagree, but I don't want to digress too much. Simply put, the ignoring wouldn't happen on a state by state basis anymore, but more along the lines of geography, which is not a significant improvement, IMO.]



That is not the case today. If CO was to make the change this year and the remaining states stay the way they are, it would definitely diminish CO's importance in future elections. That is Chris' assumption when he makes that statement. And given Chris' assumptions, it is the logical conclusion that CO becomes a 1 (and at best 3) elector state vs. its current 9. Why would any candidate campaign significantly for that 1 electoral vote, when they can spend money on other winner-take-all states?



Lastly, regarding your "You can't not do it for that reason" comment, I'd say that if the proposal was genuine, it would not be retro-active to the current election. An attempt at changing the rules in the middle of the game is always going to be viewed with suspicion. If the law took effect in the future, then the objection would be lessened, and at least the "unfair" objection would go away. As it is now, the proposal is nothing more than a "super size my vote now" or "mini size my vote now" proposal. To put it succinctly, if you are voting for a president today, you are faced with choosing to give him more electors or fewer electors if your guy wins. Who in their right mind would openly choose the lesser? Those who know their guy is going to lose. That's who. So by all rights, it should be a losing proposal, unless they can trick enough majority candidate voters into thinking that giving their guy less electoral votes is a good thing.



To put that in different terms, if you put a check box on lotto tickets that said, "Check this box to win double the money" and kept the price of the ticket the same, only an idiot would not check the box. Even democrats who think Kerry might win the state would be behooved to vote no on the proposition.

I take your point about the change coming at the 11th hour in a current (and crucial) election cycle.  It does open it to suspicion.  A post-election effective date for the policy would make it appear, and be, fairer.

I still disagree about the effect of this policy in a mixed environment, ie., if some states had a proportional and some a winner-take-all strategy.  Right now, lots of states, even some with many electoral votes, get very little attention because one party has a clear, but not necessarily overwhelming, majority.  Those states -- and the issues important to them -- would get lots more attention.

Cheers -

Help me out here. I grant you the point that some states are ignored today in the election cycle because they are so poliarized. So if CO changes their electoral system and no other states make changes, how will this proposal not put CO in the list of "to ignore states" in the future? The states that are currently ignored will continue to be ignored. The only difference is that CO will now share their company. The CO change won't make TX a battleground, and the importance of spending money in CO will be diminished.



The point being is that at most, CO would yield a 3 electoral vote differential, which would likely occur concurrent with a national landslide anyway. In most cases the differential would be 1 electoral vote. Dems would have to campaign pretty heavily to get that 1 extra vote. If they do nothing, they are almost certain to get 4. Conversely, Reps would be happy to let Dems steal that one vote if it meant putting more money into a winner-take-all battleground state and winning. But then Dems would counter and deem CO not worth the investment. I just don't see any way that CO would have the same level of importance nationally if their electoral votes were split. Surely you will agree that in this scenario at least CO becomes more diminished in importance than before?

Seth -

Your analysis is correct. If CO passes this resolution this year, it will make it less attractive for either party to campaign heavily in CO during this election cycle.

The point I was trying to make, however inarticulately, was that a proportional electoral system would tend to attract attention to states that have a clear, but not overwhelming, majority for one party or the other.  This would be a good thing, I think, for all of the "non-battleground" states that currently get little or no attention from the parties.

Proportional allocation of electoral votes would also bring the electoral system closer to the popular vote, which IMO would be a good thing.

Sorry for the confusion.

Cheers -