A Call for Help

Red State is joining the call for help to DEFEAT AMENDMENT 36.

Why is this a call for help? As Chris Floyd puts it:

All the major papers in Colorado are against Amendment 36. The Governor is against it. Basically, all the political cognoscenti (except rabid partisans and glassy-eyed fools like a particular state rep from Boulder) know it's a terrible, terrible idea.

...And so they are not fighting against it.

The biggest obstacle to overcome in defeating this idea is APATHY!!!

NO on 36 - Something Liberals and Conservatives Can Agree On

Colorado Luis continues his battle with the RMPN over Amendment 36.

Make sure you read the comments, too!

MSNBC - Split Colorado's electoral votes?

Good article about Amendment 36 at MSNBC.

From the Kerry camp:
Sue Casey, the state director for the Kerry campaign in Colorado, voiced exasperation with the measure: “I think it’s an esoteric, insider thing.”

She added, “I’m hoping that we win in Colorado and get nine electoral votes. There is no way you want to go all out and win a state — and then find out that you didn’t win the state.”

This will be the attitude of all future candidates if this measure passes.

From the Kerry-Edwards Online Forum....

Even Kerry-Edwards supporters dislike the idea of Amendment 36.

Mile High Delphi: Amendment 36 Losing Support

Mile High Delphi has new projections up showing that Amendment 36 is losing by a margin of 59% - 41%a>.

Coors, Salazar, and Amendment 36

A reader sent me an email asking the following question:

"Where do Coors and Salazar stand on this? Their race seems like a logical place to get 36 more public and defeated."

Frankly, I don't have an answer. I checked the websites and saw no mention of Amendment 36. I didn't do a deep dive, so if there are any experts on the race, please comment and let me know the answer. I'm sure the gents at the Rocky Mountain Alliance have some info or could get a post going regarding 36 and the candidates on their Salazar v. Coors blog.

If I had to make a guess, I would say that Coors opposes 36 because most Republicans do. Salazar is a little more difficult because he has recently distanced himself from the Kerry campaign, but since this is a Democratic-backed proposal, he may tow the party line and support it.

Anyone with any additional information, please pass it on.

Amendment 36 Cartoon

Nice political cartoon about Amendment 36.

EC - Part 4

Below is the final part of Pat Wilkes 4-part series on the Electoral College:

PART 4 AMENDMENT 36 A DISADVANTAGE FOR COLORADO
The great disadvantage of the proportional plan proposed in Colorado if it were adopted nation-wide: it would encourage minority parties and increase the likelihood that no one candidate would receive the required 270 electoral votes. In short, Congress might control more presidential elections than ever before. And if the House and Senate were (a) under the control of different parties and (b) also had very narrow partisan majorities in both houses, then they probably would not even be able to choose a president or vice-president.
The combined total population of the ten largest cities in the US is more than 23 million. The entire population of the mountain region of the US is 16 million. If you take the 10 largest metropolitan areas, not just the largest cities, the difference is even greater. If we moved to proportional voting as Amendment 36 suggests, this disparity in population would allow a candidate to focus resources, time, and political capital in winning the greatest numbers of voters in the cities. This pressure would apply to all parties, and would lead candidates to ignore voters in the sparsely populated West completely.

Water Rights. An example of a situation where the interests of a metropolitan area directly conflict with the interests of a state or region is river water for Los Angeles (pop. 3.7 million) from Colorado (pop. 4.3 million). A direct election would focus candidates’ resources on large cities such as Los Angeles. The debate would naturally center on local issues that directly affected Los Angeles citizens. Los Angeles derives a great deal of its water from the Colorado river, originating in the Rocky Mountains. The amount of water reserved for California impacts Colorado significantly and directly, and its use results in contention.

Competing interests like these are best served by compelling candidates to campaign in smaller states and address our issues. If a direct election or proportional EC votes were instituted, Colorado's voters would receive less attention, because a candidate would have to campaign over the entire state (the 8th largest in area) for a smaller number of votes than the geographically much smaller city of Los Angeles.

Thus, the intent of the EC is to favor a candidate whose appeal is more broadly distributed on a geographical basis across the nation. This may lead to the rare circumstance of giving the election to a candidate who did not win a majority, or even a plurality, of the popular vote. This is seen as preferable to giving the election to a candidate who is favored by a majority of voters but whose support is concentrated in fewer regions or only by voters in large states.

Corruption Limited. An additional reason in favor of the EC is that by having fifty-one separate elections, corruption in any single state is limited to the electoral votes of that state. Corruption is most likely to occur in a state in which there is not strong two party competition. If strong party machines in one party states could add phantom votes to a national total in close elections, the temptation to do so would be irresistible.

Although there were a few anomalies in the early history of the EC, none have occurred in the past century. Proposals to abolish the EC, though frequently put forward, have failed largely because the alternatives to it appear more problematic than the EC itself.

The current EC system unifies the nation by forcing a presidential candidate to gain support from all regions of the nation. In addition, the EC system is democratic, in that it gives minorities in heavily populated urban centers greater electoral power. Moreover, in a very close election, the influence of the small states remains important. Furthermore, the EC preserves of the two-party system (and political stability). Under the EC, third, or splinter, parties have a very difficult time either winning the presidency or forcing the election into the House and Senate.

The EC has performed its function for over 200 years (and in over 50 presidential elections) by ensuring that the President of the United States has both sufficient popular support to govern and that his popular support is sufficiently distributed throughout the country to enable him to govern effectively. No presidential election in over 170 years has been decided by the House of Representatives. Hence, there is no reason to tamper with a design that has stood the test of time and one which is clearly superior to any suggested reform.

Joshua and Littwin Agree on 36

Joshua has a great post regarding Amendment 36 and RMN's columnist Mike Littwin.

EC - Part 3

Below is part 3 of Pat Wilkes 4-part series on the Electoral College

PART 3 EC PROMOTES 2-PARTY SYSTEM, MAINTAINS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Last week we reviewed two reasons to vote NO on proposed Amendment 36. Our current winner-take-all Electoral College system:
1. contributes to the unity of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president—the winner must demonstrate both a sufficient popular support as well as a sufficient distribution of that support to govern.
2. strengthens the status of minority interests—the votes of small minorities within a state may make the difference between winning all of a state’s electoral votes or none of them.
3. contributes to political stability of the nation by promoting a two-party system—protects each administration from impassioned but transitory third party movements and forces the major parties to absorb the interests of minorities; and
4. maintains a federal system of government and representation.
This week, we’ll review two additional reasons.

3. There can be no doubt that the Electoral College contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two party system. It is extremely difficult for a new or minor party to win enough popular votes in enough states to have a chance of winning the presidency. Even if it won enough electoral votes to force the decision into the House of Representatives, a party would still have to have a majority of over half the state delegations to elect its candidate—and in that case, it would hardly be a minor party.

Avoids Extremism. The practical effect of the EC (along with the district system in the House of Representatives) is to force third party movements into one of the two major parties. Conversely, the major parties have every incentive to absorb minor parties in their attempt to win popular majorities in the states. By this assimilation, third party movements compromise their more radical views if they hope to attain any of their more generally acceptable objectives. Thus we end up with two large, pragmatic political parties which tend to the center of public opinion rather than dozens of smaller political parties catering to divergent and sometimes extremist views. In other words, our system forces political coalitions to occur within the parties rather than within the government.

Direct popular election of the president would likely have the opposite effect because there would be every incentive for a many minor parties to form to try to prevent a popular majority. Surviving candidates would thus be drawn to the regionalist or extremist views represented by these parties in hopes of winning the run-off election.

The result of a direct popular election for president, then, would likely be a frayed and unstable system characterized by many political parties and by radical changes in policies from one administration to the next. The EC system, by contrast, encourages parties to coalesce divergent interests into two sets of cohesive alternatives. Such organization of social conflict and political debate contributes to the political stability of the nation.

4. Finally, the EC maintains a federal system of government and representation. In our formal federal structure, important political powers are reserved to the individual states. The House was designed to represent the states according to their population. The states are even responsible for drawing the district lines for their House seats. The Senate was designed to represent each state equally regardless of population. And the EC was designed to represent each state's choice for the presidency (each state's electoral votes is the number of two Senators plus the number of its Representatives). To abolish the EC system in favor of a proportional system or nationwide popular election would strike at the very heart of the federal structure laid out in our Constitution and would lead to the nationalization of our central government—to the detriment of the states.

Abolish Senate, Too? Indeed, if we become obsessed with government by popular majority as the only consideration, shouldn’t we then abolish the Senate which represents States regardless of population? Should we not correct the minor distortions in the House (caused by districting and by guaranteeing each state at least one Representative) by changing it to a system of proportional representation? This would accomplish "government by popular majority" and guarantee the representation of minority parties, but it would also demolish our federal system of government. If there are reasons to maintain State representation in the Senate and House as they exist today, then surely these same reasons apply to the choice of president. Why, then, apply a sentimental attachment to popular majorities only to the EC?

The fact is the original design of our federal system of government was thoroughly and wisely debated by the Founders. State viewpoints, they decided, are more important than political minority viewpoints. And the collective opinion of the individual state populations is more important than the opinion of the national population taken as a whole. Nor should we tamper with the careful balance of power between the national and state governments which the Founders intended and which is reflected in the EC. To do so would fundamentally alter the nature of our government and might well bring about consequences that even the reformers would come to regret.

Defeat Amendment 36

I just got off the phone with the office of Katy Atkinson which is heading up the organized opposition to Amendment 36 in Colorado. I asked why there was no website or other media to tell voters about Amendment 36 and the damaging effects it will have for Colorado. The answer was that no money has come in to fund these efforts.

There are a couple of reasons for this:
1. People think there is no way this will pass, so they aren't giving money to defeat it.
2. Both Republican and Democratic parties are locked in their own races for President and Senate and House seats so the funds are not available to put toward defeating this Amendment.

The supporters of Amendment 36 are funded by the wealthy Klor de Alva from California.

If you oppose Amendment 36, the address to send contributions is:
Coloradans Against a Really Stupid Idea
Katy Atkinson, Registered Agent
1009 Grant Street #204
Denver, CO 80203
303-861-9440

Since these contributions are not for a candidate they can be from anyone, anywhere, and of any amount.

Donate today!!!

Wake Up, Colorado!!!!

Clay Calhoun has links to 2 articles run by the RMN about Amendment 36.

According to the RMN, the Amendment is winning 47-35.

Clay aptly points out:
It's time for all of Colorado to wake up and smell the coffee. Amendment 36 is a measure to reward the looser of an election with a participation ribbon. Politics, at the electoral college level, is winner take all. Participation ribbons shouldn't determine the President of the United States.

Spread the word: VOTE NO ON 36!!!!

Electoral College History - Part 2

Below is Part 2 of Pat Wilkes 4-part series on the history of the Electoral College:

PART 2 EC PROMOTES UNITY AND ENHANCES MINORITY INTERESTS
There are many reasons to vote NO on proposed Amendment 36. Our current winner-take-all Electoral College system:
1. contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president
2. enhances the status of minority interests,
3. contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system, and
4. maintains a federal system of government and representation.

1. Strong regional interests/loyalties have played a great role in American history. The EC system contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president. Without the EC system, the president would be selected either through the domination of one populous region over the others or through the domination of large metropolitan areas over the rural ones. It is because of the EC that presidential nominees are inclined to select vice presidential running mates from a region other than their own.

In 2004 no one region contains the absolute majority (270) of electoral votes required to elect a president. Thus, presidential candidates have an incentive to pull together coalitions of states/regions rather than to exaggerate regional differences and divide the country. Such a unifying mechanism seems wise when we see the severe regional problems that have typically plagued geographically large nations such as China, India, Russia, and even, in its time, the Roman Empire.

This unifying mechanism does not, however, come without a small price. The price is that it is possible that the candidate who wins a slight majority of popular votes may not be the one elected president in very close popular elections (as in 1888 and 2000)—depending on whether his popularity was concentrated in a few states or whether it was more evenly distributed across the states. Yet as a practical matter, the popular difference between the two candidates would likely be so small that either candidate could govern effectively.

The practical value of requiring a distribution of popular support outweighs whatever sentimental value may attach to obtaining a bare majority of popular support. Indeed, the EC system is designed to work in a rational series of defaults: if, first, a candidate receives a substantial majority of the popular vote, then that candidate is virtually certain to win enough electoral votes to be elected president; second, in the event that the popular vote is extremely close, then the election defaults to that candidate with the best distribution of popular votes (as evidenced by obtaining the absolute majority of electoral votes); third, in the event the country is so divided that no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes, then the choice of president defaults to the states in the U.S. House of Representatives. One way or another, then, the winning candidate must demonstrate both a sufficient popular support to govern as well as a sufficient distribution of that support to govern.

2. Far from diminishing minority interests by depressing voter participation, the current EC system actually enhances the status of minority groups. This is because the voters of even small minorities in a state may make the difference between winning all or none of that state's electoral votes. Since ethnic minority groups happen to concentrate in states with the most electoral votes, they assume an importance to presidential candidates well out of proportion to their number. The same principle applies to other special interest groups such as environmentalists, labor unions, farmers, etc.

It is because of this "leverage effect" that the presidency, as an institution, tends to be more sensitive to ethnic minority and other special interest groups than does the Congress as an institution. Changing to a direct election of the president would therefore actually damage minority interests since their votes would be overwhelmed by a national popular majority.
For a history of the development of the Electoral College, see William C. Kimberling's essay, A Brief History of the Electoral College, FEC National Clearinghouse on Election Administration, at http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf. Kimberling is the Deputy Director of the FEC's Office of Election Administration. This article provides a historical interpretation of the Electoral College.

DP Opposes Amendment 36

First the RMN, then the DP, but we still need to spread the word: VOTE NO ON 36.

Colorado Amendment 36 - A Historical Perspective

The article below is the first of a 4-part series on the history of the Electoral College and the negative effects that Amendment 36 would have on it, if passed.

This article was authored by Pat Wilkes and sent to me via email. I'll post parts 2-4 as the week goes on.

PART 1 COLORADO BENEFITS FROM WINNER-TAKE-ALL ELECTORAL SYSTEM

In our November election, Coloradoans will have to decide on a ballot proposition that would award electoral votes on a straight proportional basis. The Electoral College has served us well over all our nation’s history, and there seems no reason to change it in Colorado except to satisfy current political resentment.

Forty-eight of 50 states have developed winner-take-all systems where the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes statewide receives all its electoral votes. The proportional distribution of electoral votes proposed for Colorado has never been accepted by any state.

States Important. The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College for two reasons. First, the EC was never intended to reflect the national popular will. The Founders insisted that the President be elected by the states, not by the people. They felt it important that the "sense of the people" be taken into account, but they gave authority to independent electors from each state.

In a pure democracy, said James Madison in Federalist No. 10, November 22, 1787, “measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true…”

Mobocracy. The Founders were rightfully wary of direct election to the Presidency. They feared that a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. They were afraid of “mobocracy” and “popular passions.”

Madison, Hamilton, and other federalists believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the EC no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped. The founders also believed that the EC had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others.

Second, the EC reflects the structure of the government over which the Great Compromise was fought to create a democratic Republic—it gives power and voice to smaller states which would otherwise be overcome and ruled by more populous ones. The Electoral College was crafted as part of the compromise made at the Constitutional Convention between larger and smaller states to satisfy the small states. The Framers rejected direct election not because they doubted public intelligence, but because they feared that the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous states with little regard for the smaller ones. The EC was designed to protect a smaller state’s interest (like Colorado’s) against the will of a more populous state.

Those who want to abolish the EC say that it over-represents rural populations. However, this is exactly why it, as well as the United State Senate with two seats per state regardless of population, was designed. In fact, the Senate over-represents rural populations far more dramatically. There have been no serious proposals to abolish the United States Senate on these grounds—even from Hillary Clinton—so why should such an argument be used to abolish the Electoral College? Simply because the presidency represents the whole country? As an institution, so does the Senate.

Colorado is exactly one of the states that the winner-take-all system benefits. Proposed Amendment 36 would minimize Colorado's influence in presidential elections. Our nine votes are significant enough to pursue. But why would a candidate spend effort here if the most he could hope for is to flip a 4-5 margin into 5-4 margin?

Cross-posted at TyroBlog

Gov. Bill Owens on 36

Governor Owens has a column in USA Today on Amendment 36. Not surprisingly, he opposes it.

RMN Says Vote No on 36

Glad to see the RMN opposing 36 this weekend.

As I've said before, I believe that given the facts, voters will strike down this amendment. However, my concern is a lack of voter education on the issue.

This column helped spread the word about the problems with 36.

Cross-posted at TyroBlog

Reggie Rivers' Take on 36

Reggie Rivers has this column on Amendment 36 in this morning's DP.

In this column, he states that:
"...your vote actually gets converted into an endorsement of the person you voted against."

He then goes onto give an example of a neighborhood barbeque in which food selections are based on a winner take all system.

Objections to this being an out-of-state attempt to garner a few extra electoral votes for Kerry aside and the fact that it would relegate Colorado's electoral status to that of Wyoming, here are my thoughts.

Since we're using simple analogies, I'd like to put another one out there for Reggie. I assume he'll understand this one:

In a normal NFL season, there are 16 games. In each game, the winner is determined by who scores the most points. Say your team wins 9 games and scores 20 points in each of those wins. In the 7 games that your team loses, you only score 10 points. At the end of the season, you've scored 250 points.

Another team wins 10 games and scores 7 points in each win, and loses 6 games and scores 3 points in each win. At the end of the season this team has scored 88 points.

Who goes to the playoffs? The team with the most wins, of course, even though they scored less points throughout the season.

Football and voting - not necessarily the same thing, but the point is that at the outset of the season, every player knew the rules and what it would take to make the playoffs. The rules didn't change during Week 7 of the season to give out proportionate wins and loses.

That's my main beef with Amendment 36: It changes the rules for electoral votes for an election that is already well underway.

Rivers' point is that if your candidate loses, your vote goes to the person you voted against. But that doesn't mean that your vote didn't count. It most certainly counted within your state. We do elections on a state by state basis because to do it using the popular vote on a national level would be a logistical nightmare, as described in this column by the WSJ Opinion Journal.

If every state in the U.S used the proportional system and the change came in a non-election year, I most certainly would agree to it, but for Colorado to make the change alone means that we'll be playing the game according to different rules than the rest of the country.

Cross-posted at TyroBlog

More Posts on 36

Darren Copeland from Colorado Conservative posts his thoughts on Amendment 36.

Hat Tip: Hold The Mayo

Also, from the Left, check out Kevin Drum's Washington Monthly article regarding Amendment 36 and how it could be this year's Bush v. Gore. More importantly, read the comments section.

What troubles me about this whole situation is that the only coverage this amendment is getting is on the blogosphere. OK, there have been some stories in the DP and the RMN, as well as coverage in other local papers, but there seems to be no concerted opposition effort that I can find. There's the Coloradans Against a Really Stupid Idea, but I see no website or advertising to spread the word to vote "No" on 36.

Corss-posted at Tyroblog

Defense of the Electoral College

The WSJ’s Opinion Journal has an analysis of the Electoral College debate. A few key points:

1. Using the Popular Vote would not necessarily mean a candidate would win with a majority:
In six postwar elections--1948, 1960, 1968, 1992, 1996 and 2000--no candidate had a popular majority. If it's an outrage against majority rule that President Bush was elected while receiving only 47.9% of the popular vote, would it be that much less so if Mr. Gore had won with 48.4%? And what about Bill Clinton, who mustered a mere 43% of the popular vote in 1992?

2. The Popular Vote would encourage nasty recount demands and legal challenges in every county. While, "Let Every Vote Count," may be the rallying cry of voter reform activists, the practicality of using the Popular Vote would throw national elections into gridlock. The Electoral College serves the function of making each vote count within each state, while providing a feasible way of holding national elections.

3. Any Constitutional changes to the Electoral College would have to be approved by 38 state legislatures, most of which would be voting against their self-interests

The article also reviews Colorado’s Amendment 36, calling it:

…a transparently partisan effort to give Mr. Kerry a few additional electoral votes, and Coloradans, even those who support the Democrat, would be foolish to back a measure that would diminish their state's influence by taking most of its electoral votes out of play.

Cross-posted at TyroBlog