DP Poll Shows 36 On Its Way Out

This morning's DP poll shows that Amendment 36 is losing by a 55-31 margin with 14% undecided.

36 Still in Play - Vote NO!!!

The effort to have Amendment 36 deemed unconstitutional by a federal judge failed on Tuesday. It's now up to the voters to decide.

Regardless of how much I hate this amendment, I am glad that this will be decided by voters and not by a judge. I feel relatively confident that the voters will reject this idea. After it's dead the pro-36 groups won't be able to cry foul or argue that the people were not allowed to decide.

The Yankees Win!!! - According to the Rules of 36

Go to No on 36 to see how the logic of 36, if applied to the ALCS, would make the Yankees the winners.

New No on 36 TV Ad

Click here to preview the No on 36 TV Ad.

36 is Dying

Reader Sean W and Salazar v. Coors point out that a new Gallup poll shows 36 losing 53%-39% with 8% No Opinion.

When All Else Fails, Play the Race Card

Diane Carman takes her shots at the Electoral College in this morning's DP:

Now, I don't want to spoil all the fun in sixth-grade American history class, but the Electoral College was not designed to preserve some high-minded concept of a republic. So spare me the letter-writing campaigns.

Read the actual statements of the founding fathers. The truth is the Electoral College was a blatant bribe to get the recalcitrant Southern colonies to agree to join the United States.

Given that large portions of the populations of the Southern states were slaves - who weren't allowed to vote and were only counted as three-fifths of a white person for purposes of congressional representation - the South wanted assurances that bleeding-heart Yankees weren't going to ruin their lavish way of life by voting to outlaw slavery.

Diane, we will absolutely spare you the letter-writing campaign. Instead will take our shots from the blogosphere.

Carman says read the actual statements from the founding fathers. Which ones? Here's a link the Federalist Paper 68. No mention on slavery or Southern states there. I'm not saying that this argument was never made, but in all the coverage of the Electoral College that Amendment 36 has brought, this is the first time I've seen this argument.

Other arguments regarding the Electoral College and the power of small versus large states can be found here in the comments section and here.

In fact, just start reading 86 36 or No on 36.

More educational than 6th grade history, with citations and references to back up the arguments.

36 - Dead Before the Election?

This story points to a lawsuit that is challenging the consitutionality of 36 before it is even voted on. While I don't believe that there will be a ruling on this before the election, it does set the wheels in motion to deal with this issue should the amendment pass. We can all save ourselves a huge post-election headache by voting NO on 36.

NO ON 36 - Preserve Colorado's Presidential Voice

86-36 has been linked at NO ON 36. Thanks!

More Polls Pointing to 36's Defeat

A Mason-Dixon poll showing Amendment 36 losing by a margin of 44-35 is featured in this morning's DP.

Amendment 36 Losing Support

As people take a look at Amendment 36, the support erodes. In a new Survey USA poll, it is a statistical tie - 45 For versus 44 Against.

Hat-tip: RealClear Politics

About 2 weeks ago, a RMN poll had it at 47 For and 35 Against.

This seems like a trend in the right direction.

It's Official - No One Supports 36

In the Sunday DP, Coors and Salazar's state their positions on the proposed amendment: Do you support Amendment 36, which changes Colorado's Electoral College votes from winner- takes-all to proportional distribution?
Coors: No
Salazar: No

Comments and Emails - A Follow-Up

Last week, a reader sent me an email asking where Coors and Salazar stand on Amendment 36. Today, the DP has the answer:

Top Democrats are shying away from the campaign to divide Colorado's electoral votes even though their fellow partisans spearheaded the effort.

Attorney General and U.S. Senate candidate Ken Salazar - the state's highest-ranking Democratic office holder - refuses to take a stand on Amendment 36.

Coors, however:
...strongly opposes Amendment 36 on the grounds, he said, that it would dilute Colorado's power.

"I'm opposed to having people from outside our state coming in here and stealing
our electoral votes," he said.

So there it is. Republicans oppose it and Democrats won't endorse it.

In keeping with the follow-up theme, Guy from Damascus Road sent me a copy of the email exchange he had with Reggie Rivers regarding Amendment 36 (I've removed the headers and just kept the main text - the email chain reads from bottom to top):

Reggie,

Under the provisions of your proposal, the proportional allocation of electoral votes perhaps makes some sense. However, you and I both know such a thing will never happen. This proposal is nothing but a blatant attempt by wealthy, out of state interests to garner a few electoral votes for Democrats. Quite frankly, I have a whole lot more faith in the wisdom of our Founding Fathers than that of well-heeled California political operatives.

In addition, as you well know, our nation is not, nor has it ever been, a pure democracy. Our nation is a constitutional republic; and as such, the “one man, one vote” principle that you mention is not entirely applicable.

Thanks for the reply and the debate.

Regards,

Guy Cannon

Go Broncos !

-------------------------

Hi Guy,

Thanks for the note. Yes, I would favor this system in California (where Democrats would lose a lot of votes). I favor it for every state. A presidential election is the only vote in the country in which a vote for one candidate actually gets converted into a vote for the other candidate.

If a Californian votes for Bush, that vote actually gets converted into a vote for Kerry, and Kerry walks away with 55 electoral votes as if every person in the state voted for him. It's not consistent with the principle of one person one vote.

Thanks,

Reggie

----------------------

Reggie,

Would you be in favor of the same system in California? If not, why? ‘Scuse me, just wanted to check your intellectual honesty.

Guy Cannon

Finally, a Joseph C. posted a comment here, asking how he could help:

Just wanted to express my support for the opposition to Amendment 36. When will we start seeing TV ads AGAINST this amendment? How can we help?

The answer is:

1. Go to No36.org. Click on Donate, fill out the form, send a check.

2. Make sure you tell everyone you know to vote no on 36.

3. Listen for the new radio add against 36. Call the talk shows to express your opposition.

4. Write a letter to the editor of every newspaper you can (hint, use the opposition's website to find the links to all the state's newspapers).

5. On November 2nd, VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 36!!!

NO ON 36 - Preserve Colorado's Presidential Voice

The website is finshed. Check it out now!

I also heard the new radio commercial urging Coloradoans to VOTE NO ON 36. It was great! I was so excited to hear something on the radio about it. Finally, we may be getting some traction to defeat this thing.

An Official Site - At Last

Finally, there is an official No on 36 website. It is still under construction, but keep checking back. It's linked on the right.

More Liberals Oppose 36

See how hard-core Liberals feel about 36.

I Missed This Last Week...

Governor Owens snagged some funding to defeat Amendment 36. The interesting part is that it came from Apollo Group, which counts as one of its associates, Klor De Alva, the supporter of Amendment 36.

At any rate, its good to see the Governor mobilizing against this idea and raising some funds.

Amendment 36 - Weekend Round-up

In the past, I have posted here that the biggest obstacle in defeating Amendment 36 is apathy on the part of Colorado's politicos.

However, several articles in this weekend's Denver papers addressed Amendment 36 and the issues related to it. This stream of information will, I believe, help Coloradoans see the danger in passing this amendment.

On Friday, Reggie Rivers dedicated his second DP column in 2 weeks to this issue. I addressed his first column here. The thrust of this week's column was that opposing 36 on the grounds of diminishing Colorado's influence in Washington is invalid. While I disagree with him on this argument, here are 2 other reasons to oppose 36:

1. It is an attempt by out of state interests to swing the presidential election to their candidate,

And

2. It is an attempt to change the rules of the game once it has already been played.

On Saturday in the RMN, a roundtable discussion featuring Gov. Bill Owens, an opponent of 36, and Mark Grueskin, a proponent of 36 was featured.

Sunday, brought a series of letters to the editor in the DP regarding 36, mine among them. I've sent this same letter to about 15 newspapers statewide. The best part was, I used the proponent's website to identify where to send them.

In addition, Clay Calhoun has a copy of an email he received from Ted Halaby, Chairman of the Colorado Republicans, urging Republicans to vote NO on 36.

The sum of all these articles and letters is to further educate voters in Colorado on the ridiculousness of this amendment.

However, there is still more that needs to be done. Donate to this cause at the address below and on November 2nd, VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 36.

Coloradoans Against a Really Stupid Idea
Katy Atkinson, Registered Agent
1009 Grant Street #204
Denver, CO 80203
303-861-9440

Letter to the Editor in the DP

Below is the text of my letter to the editor, published in Sunday's DP:

Like many other Coloradans, I oppose Amendment 36 because of the damage it would do to Colorado's standing among the rest of the states. This amendment, which is opposed by Republicans and Democrats alike, would reduce the number of electoral votes that any one candidate could receive from Colorado. In doing so, the state's influence in Washington would diminish because, after the election, the winning candidate would have no incentive to support federal spending in a state where there is nothing to gain in the next election cycle.

However, there are more reasons to oppose Amendment 36. This amendment would take effect retroactively to influence the 2004 election. This is clearly an attempt to swing the results of a close Electoral College vote to the candidate who doesn't necessarily win the majority of the popular vote in Colorado. In addition, this amendment is being financed by a political organization in California. Apparently, supporters would rather manipulate the election in Colorado than in their own state.

Proponents of Amendment 36 will say, "The Electoral College doesn't allow every vote to count," but every vote does count within the state in which it is cast. This is the system that was set up to ensure manageable national elections, while allowing each person within a state to have a voice in the political process.

Whether you are Democrat, Republican or independent, passage of this amendment could swing this election and future elections in the opposite direction of the will of the majority of Colorado voters. Vote "no" on Amendment 36.