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