As reported by Electoral Vote Predictor 2004:
"A group of Colorado citizens have proposed a change to the state's constitution specifying that Colorado's nine electors be apportioned strictly in proportion to the popular vote. Currently Bush is ahead 48% to 43% there, so under the proposed system, Bush would get five electoral votes and Kerry four electoral votes, instead of nine to zero. The group has turned in petitions containing 130,000 signatures. If about 68,000 of these prove to be valid, the question will be a ballot referendum in November. If it passes, the change takes effect for this year's election. If it makes the ballot, on the evening of Nov. 2, the TV news anchors will probably be saying: 'President Bush won Colorado with 55% of the vote, but we don't know how many votes he will get in the electoral college until they finish recounting the closely fought referendum on changing the Colorado state constitution.' Whoever loses will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which once again may have to rule on the sensitive issue of state's rights. To learn more about what may be the sleeper issue of the year, start here."
The article points out that if this had been done this way in 2000, Gore would have won the election. Bush is leading Colorado right now, but is only a few points ahead like last time, so even if he won Kerry would also get a significant number of electoral votes, lessing Bush's chances of winning the election and increasing Kerry's.
Sunday, August 01, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Now that's interesting. I didn't realize that's something each state could change themselves.
I didn't know that either, but apparently the Constitution leaves it up to the states. I find it interesting that all adopted a "winner-take-all" system. Personally, I think the middle-of-the-road approach to keeping the electoral collage, but awarding votes proportional to the percentage of vote, as opposed to keeping it as it is now or abolishing it all together is the way to go.
Yes, definitely. Colorado would become a battleground state of sorts, and Democrats would definitely benefit more from this system, since the state usually gives all its electoral votes to the Republican. As the article mentions, if it were this way in 2000, Gore would have won. Bush and Kerry are running at about the same percentages, so it would definitely help Kerry here.
I just wanted to add I didn't consider third parties into the mix, however they have no impact of the electoral process anyway, so it's not like they would actually be cheated out of anything. ;)
A proportional system would not be the same as a popular vote (just think about third parties or more than two people getting decent percentages like in 1992), it would still take geography into account. However, unlike the current system, the minority vote of a state would be counted. 45% percent of Texans voted for Gore last time, yet none of their votes mattered. Same with Bush in California. It's not fair, and it shouldn't be defended anymore.
Post a Comment