President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
50%
50%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 17, 2009 09:28 PM UTC
39 Comments
Loading ...
1. Endless streams of political commercials that were shallow and pointless at best, and infuriatingly deceptive at worst – I can definitely live without it.
2. Frequent visits from candidates and surrogates – didn’t see or hear anything that I couldn’t have seen or heard from video of the same appearances elsewhere.
3. Democratic National Convention – once in a lifetime political theater, but not something that is likely to be repeated in Colorado regardless of the status of the Electoral College.
I will pass on the “attention” in exchange for a guarantee that the winner of the popular vote wins the election.
Why would Coloradoans support this? The symbolism of awarding our electoral college votes to the most popular candidate regardless of who was actually voted for is reason enough to be against this proposal.
Secondly, the electoral college mathematically gives a slight nod toward the importance of geography. People living in the less populated areas of the country have a mathematically more significant vote. Geography and statehood are important concepts already built into the system (US Senate), and this is one small way to recognize this in the election of the President.
This is a horrible idea. Get over 2000.
You give every reason to consider this bill a good move. What if the winner/loser positions had been reversed? Would you speak so firmly?
It’s not about 2000. It’s about a winner winning the office. It’s happened three times before, IIRC. What does my vote – for an elector who is not bound to vote for the state’s winner – really mean in the EC? It’s a flipping charade of democracy.
And giving more votes to the less populated states is somehow a good idea? The minority that is many of the red states already control Congress in a mostly obstructionist way. They get their say in the Senate. They get too much say in the House with those one rep states and the fact that, for instance, Wyoming residents are far fewer per the one rep than populated states.
One man or one woman, one vote. Simple. Ethical. Get over it.
Just to clarify Parse, my view is absolutely NOT dependent on who did/didn’t win in 2000. I am not a bushie as you so quickly assumed. Your reaction, however, makes it clear that if the results would have been flipped this would most likely not be something you are so passionate about.
What you call “Obstructionism” I call comprimise. Its a major part of our legislative process. This is not a parliamentary system. Your only argument seems to rest on the fact that one party rule would somehow be better.
No, my only concern is that whoever wins the popular vote gets into the White House.
1 person, 1 vote now equals 1-party rule?
Are you serious?
Is that really what I am arguing ajb? Are you serious?
We disagree if the extra geographic representation belongs in the election of the president, granted.
But I still think that my main point stands. There is something fishy about our votes counting toward someone we didn’t vote for. If you don’t like the EC get rid of it, don’t just look for a band-aid fix.
A horrible idea, something no other democracy has copied. I wonder why….
I’ve noticed constant inconstancy of those opposed to this. “It will cause lil ole Colorado to be insignificant!” “No, wait, that’s the way it is already!”
Once we get rid of the EC by this project, the whole idea of all that strategy work of what each state will or will not do becomes history. It will put a lot of “experts” out of business. This can’t come too soon; let the candidates speak to the nation, not the states.
which makes your particular comparison here an apples and oranges issue.
His point is that parliamentary democracy recognizes the flaws of the EC. We don’t have to change to a parliamentary system to give it up.
they don’t have an EC. The PM is directly elected in some places, I believe. No EC.
Ari speaks for the rest.
There are several countries considering a directly elected PM, but I don’t think it’s ever gone through.
PMs are usually just the head of the majority party, the whole of parliament doesn’t get a vote. If they come in after their party has been in power for a while, it can force a general election. For instance Tony Blair was the leader of the minority, so he automatically became PM. Gordon Brown is consider by some to never have been “elected” because they went out of their way to keep the next general election in 2010.
Brown also wasn’t really elected by Labour to lead Labour either. He just kind of wasn’t challenged. It’s horribly interesting… to me. Hopefully you weren’t bored.
it seems like this info doesn’t support those who were holding up the election of prime minister as some blessed counterweight to the nefarious electoral college’s election of the president.
The real solution is just to get rid of the EC and elect the president directly. Let the Senate be the level playing field for the states. (I know, this won’t compute for some.)
Anyone really think the Democrats would have picked Denver for their convention if we didn’t have the EC?
I don’t really care where they hold the party conventions. I’d rather see 1 person, 1 vote prevail (you know, democracy).
The west as a region is very important to Democrats right now. Colorado represented not just a few EVs, but also the west.
not a democracy. That’s the way the Constitution was written and ratified.
The electoral college gives a slight advantage to small states. Colorado would be nuts to hand that over.
Do you have a problem with equal rights? Do you firmly believe that some people are “more equal” than others?
Equal rights according to race was fixed with the 14th Amendment, ratified by the process set out in the Constitution. By the way, we’re still waiting for an ERA.
We have a republic. Let’s try to keep it, as Benjamin Franklin suggested.
If the Electoral College is no longer a factor, presidential candidates will bother with only the 8-10 most populous states. The rest of us won’t matter.
This argument seems to date from a hundred years ago or more.
If not for the electoral college, they’d probably just focus on the cities. That’s where all the media markets are based, and that’s where the populations are. It might actually be a nice thing: instead of appealing to suburbanites all the time, maybe we could talk about urban policy a little bit.
There is no real difference between urban areas and suburbs in this scenario. Suburbs are inevitably linked to an urban core as part of a singular metro area/media market. And suburbanites still outnumber urbanites by a little and certainly could not be ignored.
since you’re still talking about states, and the major urban media markets don’t really respect states. Philadelphia, Chicago, and New York all serve multistate regions for example. A candidate would pay attention to the New York suburbs (whether in New York or not), but not to upstate New York, for example.
The effect would seem to be that candidates would mainly pay attention to the biggest cities and their suburbs, regardless of state. I’d think that would actually make candidates more likely to pay attention to more people.
In the current system, candidates pay attention only to 8-10 states, not based on population but usually based on some arbitrary swing constituency. Would you still have that in another system? I’d think candidates would pay attention to 20 cities instead.
It would greatly reduce the influence of rural voters and increase the influence of urban voters, which I think is a good thing. But it wouldn’t change the calculus that most states aren’t worth paying attention to.
That’s EXACTLY what happens with the EC! The 2008 election was an anomaly, otherwise CO doesn’t count! Why do you think there is the phrase “flyover states?” IT’S BECAUSE WE DON’T COUNT IN MOST ELECTION YEARS!
If there was no EC, every state, every city, every person has the same potential for their votes counting the same as anyone else’s.
You have it exactly bassackwards.
contrary to my comment above, probably candidates would focus more on national media.
Still, it’s a bit silly to think of states as meaning ALL that much. Denver probably has more in common with San Francisco than it does with Colorado Springs, for example. States only have meaning in Presidential elections because of the electoral college; without those, who’d ever go to the Pennsylvania or Ohio suburbs?
This is just a lame cop-out. We could supply all the electricity we need by hooking up a generator to the founding fathers spinning in their graves over the reverence given to the Constitution in its original form. The Constitution was a compromise document that no one was overwhelmingly happy about and they expected it to change. The Electoral College was a particular element that they expected to change.
…at least until we actually have fair, uniform, enforced voting standards and practices in all 50 states. Until then, there is no way I want my Colorado electoral votes to be skewed by Ohio’s corrupt system.
And, Diebold must not be involved in any way.
anything Coffman did compares in any way to the horrors of the voting system in Ohio, then we’ve got a disconnect with reality.
This gets discussed like it’s just one issue, but there are actually two issues here:
1. Is the slight (and I mean really slight) advantage toward small states justified?
2. Is the winner-takes-all apportionment of electors justified?
IMO, there’s good room for honest disagreement on both questions. The first question is, of course, the one that threatened to tear apart the whole idea of the United States, and led to the famous compromise to begin with. Ultimately, though, it’s moot because the effect isn’t that large.
The second question is where this bill really has a bigger effect. The electoral college mainly differs from the popular vote not because of the unequal apportionment of electors, but because of the winner takes all system. Of course, it’s stupid for any state to voluntarily give up winner-takes-all unless enough other states also do it to decide the election, but that’s exactly what this initiative does.
So, arguments in favor? The only serious one, in my mind, is that it might mean issues get discussed in more depth with at least some groups of people… I won’t say whether I think that’s actually happening. The argument against winner-take-all, of course, is that it’s impossible for informed people to keep a straight face when they tell most of the country that their vote matters.
and apportion the votes based on the votes in a Congressional District. Obama got one vote in Nebraska because I believe he won the Omaha CD. State winner pick up the two Senate votes but winners in Congressional Districts get a chance to pick off one or two CD electoral votes.
This would be a huge change and make California and Texas more competitive. Imagine the candidates having to fly to Austin to peel off or hold on to a CD vote. It would make campaigning a national effort instead of a swing state focus.
I thought Colorado was on the right track when it came up for a vote in 2006. Too bad the voters rejected it.
The premise behind this argument is entirely wrong. If we switched from an electoral college (which favors close states first and big states second) to a popular vote, Colorado would not be ignored.
The electoral incentives for a popular vote system target markets with population yes, but also markets with relative value of population per dollar (not necessarily the big cities). Most importantly, a popular vote system favors places with a lot of independents (or perhaps more specifically undecided voters). You want a large population who are neither committed for you or against you, who you can target easily and cheaply. Sounds a lot like Colorado.
Additionally, a popular vote system makes candidates make policy promises that target these independent voters rather than making promises that benefit “battleground” states. This surely would favor relatively better policy preferences.
if you don’t like the Electoral College.
While the worry seems to be about a president getting elected by the EC without the legitimacy of receiving the majority of national popular vote, a real disaster looms if the EC ends in a tie and the U.S. House of Representatives chooses the president. In this situation, each state delegation is afforded one vote. To all those who say the current EC system is fine because it gives small states a slight edge in electoral power, I can’t imagine how it is good for our democracy that California and Wyoming would each only get one vote for president in the House. If you look at the make-up of each state delegation and how votes could be traded, it is entirely possible that the next POTUS is effectively selected by only a handful of US House Representatives.
The US Constitution gives authority to each state legislature to appoint its electors as it chooses. In practice we have come to accept that the popular vote of each state determines the electors for that state (Nebraska and Maine sort of an exception), but in fact there is nothing that requires a state legislature to appoint its electors based on the results of a state-wide vote. History is full of examples, but recently the Florida State House of Representatives in 2000 probably came closest to directly voting for its own EC delegation without the confirmed results of a popular vote.
We’re used to fairly decisive EC outcomes, but a tied EC and the political train wreck that would result is not that far fetched of a scenario. The compact is constitutional and solves a lot of problems with the EC.
First of all, I had to laugh when I read the poll portion. It was kind of “Lou Dobbsish” asking for verification of his position by wording the question in such a way that leads the answer – in this case “fairness” in quotation marks and the alternative is given as “do you want permanent flyover status.”
Secondly,the premise that the EC was created to “keep us relevant” in the face of big states is very arguable. Relevant? Maybe in some states but I doubt it. Equal? Absolutely not. Under the current system, a voter in a state with few EC votes that is locked into a fairly consistent pattern (such as Utah and Alabama) is completely irrelevant. And a voter in a swing state with a small number of ECVs such as Colorado or Washington is not equal to a voter in a swing state with a lot of ECVs at stake such as Ohio and Florida.
Two things about the plan itself:
1) As I understand it, it does not go into effect unless a number of states pass similar laws to make it a done deal that the popular vote would garner enough electoral votes through those states. So, we won’t start giving our electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote next election.
2) A National Popular vote means that states whose voters who are otherwise irrelevant and already in permanent flyover status become relevant again. But the term flyover doesn’t just apply to states that are locked into a particular party pattern. It also refers to all those middle of the nation small states with so few ECVs to garner that it is rarely worth paying attention to them when, with a little extra attention, you can swing an ECV rich state like Florida or Ohio.
Under an electoral college system, Presidential candidates will continue to focus on Ohio and Florida in the general election and only pay attention to small swing states like ours when the calculus tells them its worth it. (And as soon as the calculus tells them that 50% + 1 is out of reach, they will abandon us again.)Under a National Popular Vote system such as this one, candidates will still pay attention to the big pools of voters on the coasts but they will also look for value among voters and the relatively cheaper media markets and organizing opportunities in Denver, Albuquerque, and yes, Salt Lake City (can you imagine an actual campaign in Salt Lake?) will get more attention. Attention to the popular vote will make it more likely that D’s will pay attention to voters in Alabama and R’s will pay attention to voters in Massachussettes. And all of them will pay more attention to the small flyover states here out west because one vote in Colorado will be just as valuable as one vote in Ohio.
As a post earlier indicated, the ‘popular’ vote in Colorado was to NOT do this.
Everyone on here arguing for the passage of this bill is arguing for a republican form of state govt to override the will of the majority and their popular vote.
(this is late, so no one will probably read it but…)
The constitution is here for a reason. If you want to abolish the electoral college, then do it with a constitutional amendment. This is not the proper way to change the law.
It’s only happened twice since 1876 anyway, so what’s the big freaking deal?
Either way, I want to be able to vote on this. What the hell kind of constitution do we have that we can’t raise taxes $0.01 without a vote, but the legislature can change the way we vote for President? As Peter Griffin would say, that grinds my gears.
I guess I’m in the minority on this, but Pols is right: get ready to be marginalized.