Slashdot Mirror
Colorado To Vote on Electoral College Plan
siriuskase writes "Is it too much to ask of our technology/math skills to award electorial votes in proportion to the popular vote? Colorado might be up to the task. From the article:
On Nov. 2, voters will consider a proposal to immediately scrap the state's winner-take-all electoral vote system and allow candidates to keep a proportion of the delegates they win. In theory, a candidate could win 55 percent of the statewide vote and get only five of the state's nine electoral votes.
If the proposal had been in place four years ago, Gore would have earned enough electoral votes to go to the White House.
"
Colodrado is a clear Rebublican state. In 2000 Bush got 51% to Gore's 43%. In 1996 Dole won by a slim margin. Because of this the bill won't pass.
A bill like this could only pass in truely contested states. In a state, like Colorado, where one party dominates its against their best interest to let this go through.
Personally, as a swing voter in CO, I love the idea. It makes me feel like my vote would count just a little more but I see no chance in it actually passing.
Also, I think any state with such a system may be doing itself harm. It makes the state much less of a battle ground during an election and may marginalize the number of "election promisses" are granted to a state.
One should not theorize before one has data. -Sherlock Holmes-
Ok, how hard can it really be to just do away with the whole electoral college thing? Just let each individual vote count. Say a few buddies and I go out and vote for Kerry but we're in a state that heavily backs Bush. Our votes are basically thrown away in a sea of Bush supporters, because the electoral college votes will go to Bush.
If the so called "popular vote" was the only thing that mattered those votes cast by my buddies and I would count for something.
Even better would be some alternative voting systems. With one of these systems in place you could rank your preference of candidates, or place multiple votes. Your vote for Ross Perot, Ralph Nader or Candidate X would not be "thrown away" as they say, for example you could vote for both Kerry and Nader if you wished.
Urge to post... fading... fading... RISING!... fading... fading... gone.
I'd sure like to hear a statistician weigh in on the Electoral College. Maybe after this post I'll hit google on it.
One aspect of the Electoral College is that it lumps things. That can be good, because in 2000 there were a few close states, but Florida was the Shining Star. The recounts could be confined to Florida. (no further comment)
Without the lumping effect (go ahead and come up with a better word than "lumping") of the Electoral College, it's possible to throw things into a nationwide recount. Given that we didn't even really recount Florida, we're that much less likely to do a national recount. In other words, direct election by popular majority could have the likely unintended result of encouraging fraud.
Splitting electoral votes could cut both ways, depending on how it's done. One way would be by proportion of population. Another way would be by Congressional district, using winner-take-all for the extra 2 votes. There would then need to be a formula for those 2 votes - popular majority, or majority of districts. Given the recent bouts of Gerrymandering by both parties, it would be possible (perhaps not likely) for all but one of the Congressional districts to go for one candidate, and the popular vote to go for the other.
Part of the Electoral College is that it attempts to avoid "Tyranny of the Majority," where a slim majority can get it's way on all issues while ignoring the needs/wants of a large minority. That's part of the reason a small state like Vermont, with fewer people in the whole state than in many cities, gets 3 electoral votes. But arguably, the winner-take-all nature of the Electoral College magnifies the "Tyranny of the Majority" problem. Splitting electoral votes decreases it, at the expense of needing an apportionment formula. IMHO, whatever splitting scheme were used, the two extra votes should be kept to the popular vote, specifically to keep control of them out of the smoke-filled back rooms.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Colorado's proposed Amendment 36 intends to divvy up the state's nine EC votes proportional to the popular vote. In other words, each 11.1% wins you an additional EC vote.
In practice, this will mean that in most cases only one, or perhaps two, EC vote will be up for grabs, because few elections see the winner win (assuming a two-person race) more than 55.6% of the voting electorate, and fewer still with 66.7%. The losing side will be almost certain to win at least three and quite likely four EC votes, no matter what happens.
This, of course, will mean that Colorado will immediately become the least-interesting state of the Union to Presidential candidates. There's a good reason why an organization formed to oppose
the referendum calls itself "Coloradans Against A Really Stupid Idea."
The ex post facto nature of the amendment also guarantees a lawsuit, especially if the national election is close.
The irony is that although Democrats are behind Amendment 36 in hopes of giving Senator Kerry a guaranteed four or, at the least, three EC votes, it's entirely possible that the move could backfire. Bush won Colorado in 2000, but this year the state is a tossup . It's entirely possible that Kerry could lose because he won Colorado outright but didn't get all its EC votes.
and I thought the same thing, that good, at least it's more fair to us the voters, but now the candidates really won't give a shit any more.
However, that isn't the case. Instead they focus on the districts that are in question, which may exist where the state as a whole's stance may be more sure one way or another.
Districts that are not in question are no better or worse off than they were before.
I guess my real frustration is that "news" has somehow shifted from "reporting" to "marketing and editorializing" forsaking the accuracy and reliability of what's being reported. I too put freedom above all else in this country, but I believe that with freedom comes responsibility, and I believe that the news media is not being responsible. And the problem is that there is really no way to enforce responsibility.
I still stand by the statement, "Just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it right to do."
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
Not if the two camps are equally vociferous, but unequally dedicated, to the efforts at fairness.
And lest anyone think I refer to the present, I suggest you review the history of Gerrymandering.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.