|
Electoral college safe?Electoral college opponents pull bill to change the systemPeter Marcus, DDN Staff WriterMonday, May 4, 2009 | |
Critics of a bill that would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes nationwide say they convinced supporters to pull the measure.
House Bill 1299 — sponsored by Rep. Andy Kerr, D-Lakewood, and Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver — would require Colorado to award its presidential electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of which candidate won the state. The National Popular Vote bill would only take effect if enough states agree to the interstate compact to reach a majority of the electoral votes.
If it does take effect, all the electoral votes from the states that adopted the measure would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes nationwide.
But critics — mostly Republicans — say they have convinced Romer to kill the legislation, arguing that it is a “controversial scheme” that would render Colorado’s vote meaningless. The state would be overlooked in presidential campaigns as a result, say opponents.
“For those of us who think the founders’ plan to pick a president is enduringly wise, the defeat of this bill is a major accomplishment,” said Senate Republican Leader Josh Penry, of Grand Junction.
“Attention Democrats: The 2000 election is over. It is time to Moveon.org,” quipped Penry, poking fun at the liberal political action committee and the controversial presidential election, which former Vice President Al Gore narrowly lost to Republican candidate George W. Bush.
If Colorado agreed to join the compact, it would become the fifth state to join the agreement. It would join Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey and Illinois.
The measure had already made its way through the House and a Senate committee.
Similar measures in 2007 and 2006 — led by former Democratic Sen. Ken Gordon of Denver — failed, despite lobbying by the National Popular Vote organization, which claims to have bipartisan support.
Romer said he agreed to kill the legislation not because of pressure from opponents, but simply because he didn’t believe he had the support needed this year to push the measure on to the governor’s desk.
He pointed out that there was once a time when black people were not allowed to vote and senators were elected by legislators instead of the people. Like those antiquated rules, the Electoral College system needs to be changed, said Romer.
Laughing at Penry’s remark about ‘Moveon.org,’ Romer said he is still bitter about the 2000 presidential election.
“The travesty that happened to this country in 2000 when we had a president who many Americans felt was not legitimately elected president — (Gore) had won the popular vote and was denied the presidency based upon a questionable Supreme Court decision — is a piece of history I hope to never return to,” he said.
Supporters say the bill would actually give Colorado voters more of a voice by placing more of a spotlight on the state — many candidates have ignored Colorado in the past for large “winner-take-all prizes,” such as the electoral votes of Ohio and Florida.
Colorado was a focal point for both presidential candidates in the last election, having been a stomping ground for numerous rallies, town hall meetings and community events across the state. Denver was also home to the Democratic National Convention, which likely inspired some of Obama’s return visits.
Critics maintain that the measure would destroy the Electoral College system, which deserves to be protected by the constitution.
“It not only is an affront to our time-honored electoral system, but it’s also a slap in the face to all Colorado voters of every political stripe,” said Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, of the legislation. “This scheme would make our presidential vote irrelevant.”
| Comments: |
| TheVirginiaHistorian @ 2009-05-04 08:23:15 | But the founders never intended presidents to be selected by judges. It was always intended to be of the people (Federalist #68).
The main reason to amend or abolish the Electoral College is the state-made winner-take-all rule which effectively disenfranchises the state minority. It was a 19th Century law adopted by political machines to erase state diversity.
With the District Plan, majorities in each Congressional District can express the diversity which naturally arises in a democracy, whether geographic, economic or political.
It avoids political parties trying to 'out-fraud' each other in the precincts they control by the congressional district rule of equal populations, one man one vote. If there is a big-city or agri-business permanent majority in the state overall, they get a two-elector bonus for the state-wide majority. |
| Flag this comment as Inappropriate / Spam |
| Bob Richard @ 2009-05-04 10:25:03 | Actually, the state of Washington joined the compact recently, so Colorado would be at least the sixth. |
| Flag this comment as Inappropriate / Spam |
| mvymvy @ 2009-05-04 11:41:56 | Dividing a state's electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of our antiquated Electoral College system of electing the President. What the country needs is a national popular vote to make every person's vote equally important to presidential campaigns.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would less be less fair and accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts.
The district approach would not cause presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. Under the winner-take-all rule (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. In California, the presidential race is competitive in only 3 of the state's 53 districts. Nationwide, there are only 55 "battleground" districts that are competitive in presidential elections. Under the present deplorable state-level winner-take-all system, two-thirds of the states (including North Carolina and California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, seven-eighths of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The National Popular Vote bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill is enacted in a group of states possessing 270 or more electoral votes, all of the electoral votes from those states would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). This would guarantee the White House to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 27 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See www.NationalPopularVote.com
|
| Flag this comment as Inappropriate / Spam |
| mvymvy @ 2009-05-04 11:46:04 | In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware --75%, Maine -- 71%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 73% , Massachusetts -- 73%, New York -- 79%, and Washington -- 77%. See www.NationalPopularVote.com |
| Flag this comment as Inappropriate / Spam |
| TheVirginiaHistorian @ 2009-05-07 08:26:20 | If the district plan is generally adopted, the president will be more closely tied to the Congress, especially the House of Representatiives. I am disagreed with much of doctrine promoting an imperial presidency. --- |
| Flag this comment as Inappropriate / Spam |
| TheVirginiaHistorian @ 2009-05-07 08:32:04 | The fairness or competency of local registrars is of little concern nationally if their effect on the total is limited to their proportion of total population in the state. The danger of endless court challenges would be minimized. I am opposed to judge appointed presidents. --- |
| Flag this comment as Inappropriate / Spam |
| TheVirginiaHistorian @ 2009-05-07 08:36:20 | The weight of California by a district plan in the Obama-McCain election would have been the same as direct popular vote, assuming all things equal nationally in voter turnout, election machinery and vote counts. But California suppressed 5 million votes in its 2008 elector selection by its winner-take-all unit rule. I am opposed to state disenfranchisement of minorities by geography or politics. --- |
| Flag this comment as Inappropriate / Spam |
| Baronscarpia @ 2009-07-24 09:26:31 | Look to what happened in Ohio in 2004 to see what would happen if a Congressional District scheme ot allocating electoral votes were to become operative.
For months in advance of the election it was know that Ohio was "in play." Modern polling science makes assessments of that type possible in way that was not possible just 60 years ago, much less 200. The evidence is abundantly clear that electoral fraud was committed in Ohio, of every possible variety - "caging," shifting of voting machines, and much more. It was worth the investment of time and money to do so only because Ohio was a contested state.
What will happen if a CD method is adopted is that the same polling techniques will be applied at the CD level, and at that level it will be even harder to prevent (or detect) electoral fraud.
The lower the level of counting, the easier fraud is to perpetrate. The NPV would require a national effort to commit electoral fraud. Much harder, if not impossible.
The CD scheme will also serve to magnify - by a geometric order - the systematic disenfranchisement of millions of voters across the country, and will reward those voters who happen to live in "contested" CD's with a disproportionate weight in determining the president.
Think of it this way...how would you feel if you found out that voters in Idaho or Vermont were being given 6 or 7 ballots for voting on the president? That is the real effect of the winner-take all method of allotting the EC votes. Move it down to the CD level, and it will be like giving a few million people 20-30 ballots, and the rest of us who live in predictably "red" and "blue" CD's...none.
One person...one vote...please support the NPV interstate compact. |
| Flag this comment as Inappropriate / Spam |
|
 |
|
