Even the Left Opposes 36

As part of my effort to defeat Amendment 36, I have been browsing the blogs of the Colorado Left. I came across this post from Colorado Luis opposing this Amendment:

All it does is take the one aspect of the Electoral College that favors large states over small ones -- the winner take all feature that ensures that every vote in California or Florida matters far more than any vote in Wyoming or South Dakota -- and obliterates it in the single case of Colorado, thus reducing the potential power of each vote in Colorado to a level below that of the smallest state or even D.C.

Just because they are left of the political spectrum doesn't make them dumb.

Splitting Electoral Votes: A Historical Perspective

The RMN ran an update to an earlier story about the effects of electoral vote splitting on past elections.

In summary, the RMN concludes that the elections in 1948, 1968, 1992, and 2000 would have resulted in no candidate getting enough electoral votes and the election being sent to the House of Representatives to decide. It concludes:

Four postwar elections chosen by the House of Representatives rather than by the people! Surely Coloradans will see through this anti-democratic amendment and reject it.

I don't know the method they used (the article refers to the WSJ for the analysis), but as I posted here, other analysis shows that Bush would have won the 2000 election handily when applying the split vote system to all 50 states.

What would have happened had the split vote system been applied everywhere is not really the point. What is important is that outside interests are using Colorado to swing a close election to John Kerry.

Even if we assume that the interests that support 36 are not aligned with a particular candidate, the fact that they are trying to change the rules during the game should raise alarms in voters' minds.

Cross-posted at TyroBlog

Spreading The Word

Special Thanks to Clay, Guy, and Joshua for plugging this site.

Welcome to all newcomers and please feel free to comment or contribute.

Response to My Letter to the Editor

I spoke with my grandma last night and she complimented me on my letter to the editor. She also said that her friends mentioned that they hadn't heard much about Amendment 36, but that after reading my letter, they would vote against it.

I feel like such a political powerbroker.

Seriously though, this is why I started 86-36. There hasn't been a lot of coverage of this Amendment. I think there will be more press closer to the election, but in the days of early and absentee voting, we need to be sure that people are informed now.

Cross-posted at TyroBlog

No Attention Means No Representation

Check out my very first letter to the editor regarding Amendment 36. This is my hometown newspaper that I grew up reading. I wrote in response to a letter calling for support of Amendment 36. Since I doubt that this issue is getting much attention in the Upper Arkansas Valley, I felt a duty to bring the facts to the people of Canon City.

Cross-posted at TyroBlog.

Letters to the Editor on 36

For some reason I have been paying more attention to letters to the editor lately. Here's one from this morning's DP:

David Harsanyi argues that the movement to determine Colorado's electoral votes on a proportional basis rather than on a winner-take-all basis is a 'radical change' that would 'dilute Colorado's already faint voice' in the election. Electing our public officials on the basis of who gets the most votes is the basis of democracy, isn't it?

Harsanyi argues that 'if New York, California, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania or a host of other states had employed such a (proportional) system, Bush would have won, easily.' That's nonsense. By selecting which states are included in proportional voting and which are not, you could produce any result you want. In all fairness, all states should go to a proportional system.
Bob Kropfli, Golden

Nonsense indeed, Bob! Let's see what would happen if every state used the system proposed under Amendment 36. Jeff Sagarin (yes, the guy that does the football polls) has already done the analysis. It turns out that if the entire country had used this electoral system in 2000, President Bush would have still won. However, instead of winning by 4 electoral votes, he would have won by 36 electoral votes.

Cross-posted at TyroBlog

George Will on 36

More national attention on Amendment 36. This time from George Will:

Suppose Kerry wins Colorado (in 2000 Bush won with 50.8 percent; Kerry's campaign says their man is leading today). And suppose winner-take-all is ended. Kerry will harvest five instead of nine electoral votes. He could lose the presidency by seven electoral votes (Gore lost by five), less than the eight-vote swing that Colorado's new system would produce. That would be poetic justice, the best kind.

As stated before, I think that however this presidential election turns out, this Amendment is a bad idea.

Cross-posted at TyroBlog

Hat-tip: Best Destiny

Maine Vote Splitting

I don't usually pay much attention to Slate.com, but I found this article by Julia Turner on Maine's system of splitting electoral votes. This is the type of system that Amendment 36 backers propose. However, Turner doesn't think this is such a good idea:

In any event, some political reformers think we should be taking more of our cues from Maine. Proponents of revamping the Electoral College have suggested that every state adopt Maine's peculiar electoral vote-splitting scheme. At first, I thought this was a brilliant idea. Although vote-splitting sounds bizarre, it actually makes a lot of sense—it's a thoughtful way to ensure that the electoral votes Maine casts more closely reflect the wishes of its people. But then I found this Web site, on which sports statistics guru Jeff Sagarin figured out how the 2000 presidential election would have been decided if all states used the Maine method. Turns out Gore would have been whupped. Ah well. Perhaps there's a better way.

The Jeff Sagarin website she refers to is linked here.

So, we have a blatantly liberal columnist saying that this isn't such a good idea, if it is applied to all states and everyone used the same system, because the 2000 election wouldn't have been close. But if applied to certain purported battleground states, like Colorado (I don't think it will even be close), it might make some sense.

Just provides more evidence that the liberals only want voting reform if it benefits them.

Cross-posted at TyroBlog

Maybe It Won't Be Much of a Fight

In Bob Ewegen's column in the RMN this morning, he tackles TABOR and Amendment 36.

My interest is in Amendment 36. However, Ewegen doesn't think this will be much of a fight:

Finally, Amendment 36 specifies that, if passed, it will apply retroactively to this election. Such an ex post facto change in our electoral law is probably unconstitutional, so if Colorado voters do approve the measure, it is certain to be challenged in court by whatever party actually carried our electoral vote. Thus, if the 2004 election is close, we might have another long count in the presidential arena, with Colorado courtrooms replacing Florida venues in yet another bitter legal battle that would ultimately have to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Weighing their odds with Scalia and Co., Colorado Democrats are deciding they'd rather be president than irrelevant - and are joining Republicans in opposing Amendment 36.

I've received similar comments from other bloggers who have seen the "86-36" blog.

While I don't believe that this Amendment will pass, it's still important to make sure that voters don't get complacent and let the vocal majority (supported by billionaires from California) slide this one past us.

Cross-posted at TyroBlog

More on 36

David Harsanyi makes a great case for defeating Amendment 36 in this morning's DP:

The activists who want to radically change the way we elect the president make it sound like a matter of common sense.

They'll tell you that changing the current electoral process will simply "make every vote count." That it's a much "fairer" way to count the votes than the current "winner take all" system.

Don't fall for it.

The conniving rhetoric of Amendment 36 and its proponents masks a simple, irrefutable point: It would dilute Colorado's already faint voice in the presidential contest and make us the lone state to allocate electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote.

He continues:

And were Amendment 36 advocates calling and moving for a direct popular vote nationwide, a legitimate debate about the pros and cons of direct democracy could ensue.

But it's not about that, either.

Klor de Alva and his group only typify the shortsighted, win-at-all-costs character of this year's presidential race. The question now is, will the Democratic Party in Colorado follow his lead?

Shortsighted indeed. Check out this post by Joshua at View From a Height:

When I asked him (Democratic State Senator Ron Tupa (D-Boulder))specifically about what happens after the next reapportionment, if we get 10 electoral votes, he said he didn't know what the formula required, that he "didn't think that anyone there had thought this thing through that far, and that it would be at least 10 years before that happened." (Hint: 2012 - 2004 = 8.) That's thinking ahead.

Cross-posted at: TyroBlog

Welcome to 86-36

This blog is dedicated to posting the opposition's view of Colorado Amendment 36. The term "86" is commonly used when you want to "get rid" of something. The name was thrown around during a recent Hugh Hewitt show and was also mentioned in a post over at Best Destiny.

The posts on this blog will highlight the reasons why Colorado voters should vote against Amendment 36 on November 2, 2004.

For a good start to the discussion, see this post on TyroBlog.