Help on Prop 36.....Proportionate Representation

[serryjw]

I am so torn on which way to vote...input please!

[sundancekid]

1. Dem candidate Salazar said on MTP today he was against it.

[serryjw]

2. BOTH parties are against it

They don't want to endorse a nationwide campaign to encourage other states to put it on their ballots. I still can't decide if it is a good idea at the WRONG time.

[paulk]

3. one of the main things wrong with the electoral college

is that it over represents rural America - because every state gets two EVs for their Senators regardless of population. For instance - take the most populous state, California, and put it next to the least populous, Wyoming. In the 2000 election one EV in CA represented 193,950 voters. In WY one EV represented 71,017. That is - one EV in WY is worth roughly 3 times one in CA.

Proportional representation in 2000 would have given Gore 6 more EVs than Bush in CA and Bush 3 more than Gore in WY, since the victory margin in WY was better than two to one (68-28).

So... now we have one EV in CA representing - 1,808,000 voters and one EV in WY representing 71,000 voters - or 25 times that of CA. Even if the split in WY is 2-1, that's not much better. It makes the WY EV represent 213,000 voters, or (roughly) nine times that of California.

Proportional representation actually exaggerates the failings of the electoral college. It's a bad idea at the wrong time.

[serryjw]

4. Agreed....BUT

IF we don't do anything we will never bust open the EC. I am tired of the 2 party system that does not represent me or millions of others.

[paulk]

5. I would rather err on the side of caution

Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing. Just look at Bush and Iraq!

[Kanary]

10. Owens is working hard against it. Does that tell you anything?

:hi:

Kanary

[paulk]

14. Salazar is against it

Sue Casey, Kerry's Colorado campaign manager is against it.

Does that tell you anything?

[mokeyz]

30. re: "Agreed....BUT"

I agree also. We need to get an entirely new Congress. I would be happy if every one of them was voted out (even the ones I like). They are all bought and paid for no matter how well meaning they might be.

We need at least one 3rd party on each side to stop this disaster. I think 36 is a good thing.

[newyawker99]

39. Hi mokeys!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[factcheck]

31. Agreed....

Simply remove the 2 votes for the senators and things even out.

Example: in 2000 it would have been Gore 243, Bush 211.

[CO Liberal]

6. The Anti-Amendment 36 Ads....

...are sponsored by a group called "Citizens Against a Really Stupid Idea".

I collected signatures to get that on the ballot. But I'm probably going to vote against it. Because when Kerry wins Colorado, I want him to get all nine electoral votes.

:kick:

[Jeff1965]

7. The only reason to vote for 36

Is if you are a Nader fan and want him to get at least one electoral vote.

[DaveinMD]

8. Look at it this way

If Kerry wins Gore plus Nevada and New Hampshire, its a tie. If prop 36 passes, he wins the election. I hope it passes.

[Kanary]

9. As I said here when this came up before.... when Franken was in town,

he heard both sides, and endorsed this.

I agree with him, and think it's TIME.

Kanary, with :hi: for serry.....

[eleny]

16. I've been torn on this too

I voted to have it on the ballot since I wasn't counting on us being a toss up state.

With Franken's knuckleheaded friend campaigning against it along with Owens, I've decided to vote for it.

[Kenneth ken]

11. I haven't decided yet either

I think this is something I'd rather see in a different election year. I would have voted for this in 2000.

Assuming a fair election (big assumption, I know) I think Kerry has a good chance to win in CO, so voting again A-36 would be helpful in the overall EV vote.

For longer term, I kind of like the idea, as I think it would be helpful to third parties, and that would help democracy.

I do not favor abolishing the electoral college, though. I just think the EV votes need to be more representative of the voters in any given state.

[mountainvue]

12. Can't vote for it this year. n/t

[randr]

13. Results either way are potentially disastrous

A Kerry win in Colorado and 36 passage would throw EC votes to Bush.
A Bush win and 36 fails misses the chance to help Kerry.
AAAAAGGGGHHHHHHH!
I think this will take strategic maneuvering as election day nears.
We need to more accurate polling and an indication of how the opposition will be voting on this. If Owens is against this it probably means he sees a Bush victory. If he switches it will indicate their polls show a possible Kerry victory.
My gut feeling is to just vote against it as a good idea at the wrong time. That would change if I see a clear Bush lead.

[F.Gordon]

15. How will you know this?

That would change if I see a clear Bush lead

From the "polls"?
:shrug:

[eleny]

17. Do you believe Zogby might be the best indicator?

Zogby seems to have had it right over the years. At least that's what I hear discussed. So maybe that's one we can look to for some guidance. I take part in their online polling.

Right now, I'm still waiting for my mail-in ballot to arrive in the mail! Being able to vote in the first place would be ever so nice.

[F.Gordon]

23. Yea, what's up with that?

Right now, I'm still waiting for my mail-in ballot to arrive in the mail! Being able to vote in the first place would be ever so nice.

Should have them by now.

I don't trust any poll right now. These registration fraud stories are a little unsettling. Wonder how many dem votes are going to be thrown out?

[randr]

18. I just do not know as yet.

How close was Zogby last time? Are there any in state polls that are reliable?
This is why I will not vote early or absentee.

[F.Gordon]

22. Strickland was ahead in the polls....2002

Even if Kerry was ahead in the "polls" I would still vote YES on Amendment 36.

[randr]

24. Colorado would look worse than Florida

if Colorado goes for Kerry and passes 36.
Imagine, we elect Kerry and our passage of 36 gives B* the office.

[factcheck]

34. It is stupid...

to vote for or against this simply based on how it will affect THIS election. Think about it: what about in 8 years?? What if Kerry is tossed out of office because either 1) He doesn't get all of Colorado's EVs and the race is very close, or 2) many other states follow suit and totally screws things up, or 3) a combination of both.

I am 100% against this (but would definitely be for removing the 2 senator votes in each state to reflect population better) and will vote against it.

[intheflow]

19. Thumbs up on 36

I'm a transplant from Massachusetts where we'll never need to worry about EV splitting because, well, we're perpetually liberal.

But growing up there you get infused with patriotism of a different kind than out here. I was stoked with history from Patrick Henry to John and Abigail Adams. Their whole beef with England was unfair representation.

I am for the most representational form of government. The closer to "one person, one vote," the better. Splitting Colorado's EV means more equitable representation, regardless of the election campaign being waged.

True democracy should never be feared.

I say "yea" A-36.

[paulk]

20. under the Colorado amendment

the Massachusetts electoral split in 2000 would have been 7 - 4 in favor of the Democrats. So instead of getting eleven electoral votes, Gore would have netted three from MA.

[intheflow]

21. But Gore probably would have won

if all the states split their electoral votes. More even split to more accurately reflect popular vote.

[lakercub]

25. What a dilemma

This issue is brutal for me. Unlike some of you apparently, I got my absentee form 3 days ago. But I haven't sent it yet, because I am still debating this one with myself.

Pros:
1. Bush wins CO, but state gets split almost in half (could give Kerry the election, until the Supreme Court says what we did is illegal (whores)).
2. As a citizen of El Paso County (help me), I always see this state as a red state. This year may be different, but I am not convinced the state is shifting to the center ideologically. I think the only reason CO is close this year is because Bush is such a bungling fool. We may be able to cut into the the national republican power in this state for years to come with this amendment.
3. If Bush is selected again this time around, just imagine the 2008 election. It could be Jeb Bush running, God help us all. I'd rather think Colorado would do him no good. We are calling this the most important election ever. But if Bush wins, and Jeb runs in 08, that one could be even more important.
4. Maybe more states would consider it. If just a FEW of the southern states were doing this, the election would be a whole new ballgame. As a democrat, I don't want CA, IL, MA, or NY to even think about it until all the southern and midwest states do it. But if the southern and midwest states follow our lead, a lot of good can come from it.
5. The electoral college sucks.

Cons:
1. What if Kerry wins this state this year? We will have shot him in the foot. If that results in losing the election to Bush, the shame may be to much to handle.
2. Colorado would be marginalized if it passes. 9 electoral votes doesn't make the state a national powerhouse, but it is a decent total, and it will grow more than some other large states in the future. If we did get back to the center (at least), this state could be supremely important with a winner-take-all system. Colorado could benefit greatly from this (it would also suck come national election time, the commercials would be brutal).
3. Denver and Boulder are large, and somewhat more liberal than my Colorado Springs hellhole. If their liberal influence expands, this state could at least become similar to OH, PA, and MI in that democrats may have a decent shot at it every four years. This would also help local democrat candidates as it would get out the democrat vote. I know a bunch of democrats who didn't vote in 2000 because they knew Gore wouldn't win here, and they didn't care about the state and local elections (misguided, but thats how it is).

As you see, I'm torn. When I count up the electoral votes, I usually assume all of CO's going to Bush. But Kerry, if he gets MI, OH, PA, WI, IA, and NJ would still win without Colorado (and I think he can get all of these, especially MI, NJ, and PA). If he loses on any of these he probably needs all 9 of ours (and maybe Nevada as well). So, for the sake of this election, I am currently leaning against this (and I hope I'm right, this could really screw the future of this state, and country, badly).

[Warren DeMontague]

32. CA won't do it.

We like tossing all that weight around as a single block.

[factcheck]

35. Right...

One person, one vote, we change America to a true Democracy. Then we don't have representatives and senators based on states, we can popularly elect them from the entire country as well.

Sorry, but if the United States was founded as a true democracy or was ever intended to be a true democracy, I could see your point.

But, since we are NOT a democracy, but a Democratic Republic of United States, the electoral college MUST exist.

I have proven the HUGE failures of direct popular vote several times already. It opens up the possibility for a single party to rule for far too long of a period of time. And that possibility increases with each political party added.

[intheflow]

37. We would still have regional representation

You think people would vote for senators an congresspeople on a national basis? I disagree. I think people will always vote for people they have access to, and people who will represent their regional interests. Someone running on a national ticket cannot represent all regions nor be accessible to such wide numbers of people.

[F.Gordon]

38. There are still only 13 states?

I've been learnin' myself on this subject since it is coming up quite a bit in the discussion of A36. There is no such thing as a Democratic Republic. They cancel each other out.

What is the foundation for a republic? A Monarchy. What is the main argument for a republic? That people are too stupid..."ill-informed".

Perhaps you should travel a little further into the future with your time machine...to the time around the New Deal. When the Court ruled time and time again that "individual citizens must be protected against overpowering economic groups and from disasters they have not brought on themselves."

Since the Reagan Monarchy the repukes have been working to erase the New Deal and give complete power in this country to the "overpowering economic groups".

I'm guessing that you still believe that witches should be burned at the stake and table/chair legs should be covered because they are "sexually suggestive". And this is one of the most confusin' things I've ever read...

It opens up the possibility for a single party to rule for far too long of a period of time. And that possibility increases with each political party added.

The bush* Monarchy is being bought by the same groups that the New Deal sought to protect this country from. Amendment 36 will allow us stupid..."ill-informed" citizens to have our vote counted and it still keeps your beloved "free republic" intact.

Edit? I should never try typing anything until I've had two cups of coffee...

[eleny]

26. I heard that a lawsuit has been filed

Sounded like it was Republicans who filed saying that the state legislature is the only body that can change this not the people.

[Kanary]

27. BWAHAHAHAHA!

Only the state legislature can pass bills........ except for all the ones the RW takes "to the people".

What a bunch of ...........................

Gotta love our state politics, eh? :hi:

I had a long talk about this today with a woman who's been involved with politics all her life....... worked with Jesse Jackson, etc. I respect her opinions, as she is so knowledgeable it's scary.

She's also voting for 36, for many of the above reasons, and is very strong on it. Wish you coulda been there. :)

Kanary

[F.Gordon]

28. So, can we now throw out TABOR?

Not sure if the repugs are behind this...at least openly. Does anyone have access to the voter registration database in Ft. Collins? To check out this Jason Napolitano fella.

I don't see how a judge could rule on something that doesn't even exist but it does have a repug "smell" to it. No chance in hell (IMO) that a judge would rule on this, but they get national media attention on it and get the "idea" out there that it isn't constitutional. To discourage people from voting for it.

[F.Gordon]

29. Current polling data on Amendment 36

Denver Post October 11, 2004
Yes: 35%
No: 44%
Undecided: 21%

Surveyusa October 7, 2004
Yes: 45%
No: 44%
Undecided: 12%

[BootinUp]

33. Looks like its going down to defeat imho -eom

[Rowdyboy]

36. If it helps Bush win, SCOTUS will rule it constitutional...

If it allows Kerry to win, SCOTUS will rule it unconstitutional...

:shrug:

Either way, it could cause a long, drawn-out nightmare like Florida in 2000. I'd be more in favor of working for a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college entirely.

Just pray the election isn't close enough for it to matter.

[treehuggnlibrul]

40. I had the same question, and my MIL called

Thanks to everyone who posted. I've been torn on this, but feel it leaves Colorado open to a huge mess.

My 68-year-old MIL is very worried that the RMN poll is accurate... I tried to convince her not to listen to the polls -- I just don't believe RMN is right. But she's just very anxious, and decided to vote today, and voted yes on 36 mostly because of the polls she'd seen this weekend.

Just a little side note... In my little town of 4000 or so, along the Front Range, I go for a run every morning and am running on more than endorphins by the end :-) Yard after yard displays a Kerry/Edwards sign. Only ONE W sign (shudder) along my route.

I really believe Kerry will win.