Interesting possible change to electoral college in Colorado

[mrbowler]

A group of Colorado citizens have proposed a change to the state's constitution specifying that Colorado's nine electors be apportioned strictly in proportion to the popular vote. Currently Bush is ahead 48% to 43% there, so under the proposed system, Bush would get five electoral votes and Kerry four electoral votes, instead of nine to zero. The group has turned in petitions containing 130,000 signatures. If about 68,000 of these prove to be valid, the question will be a ballot referendum in November. If it passes, the change takes effect for this year's election.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[bobbcat]

I do not understand why this is necessary. Although the electors typically vote according to the popular vote pattern of their represented state, they are not bound by that. They are allowed to vote either way they wish.

[luvmetender]

Originally Posted by bobbcat

I do not understand why this is necessary. Although the electors typically vote according to the popular vote pattern of their represented state, they are not bound by that. They are allowed to vote either way they wish.

But they always vote the straight party line. I love this idea, I hope it gains support!

[Twinplets]

Originally Posted by mrbowler

A group of Colorado citizens have proposed a change to the state's constitution specifying that Colorado's nine electors be apportioned strictly in proportion to the popular vote.

By this system, it would even be possible for 3rd party candidates to get electoral votes.

I think this is a great idea, and wish it could be implemented everywhere. I live in Massachusetts, and I don't know why I'm going to bother to vote, other than that I feel an obligation to as a US citizen. Kerry is going to sweep the state, whether I vote for Kerry, Bush, Nader, or don't even vote.

[crazytimes]

Excellent idea.

[tschmitt]

bad idea, for this reason - it's a popular vote, in disguise. Under this method, Bush would have lost the last vote.

Remember, we're a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY - it has been agreed that if we were a true democracy, it would be mob rule, which the founding fathers wisely turned us away from!

[crazytimes]

What is the difference between a republic and democracy?

[mrbowler]

Originally Posted by tschmitt

bad idea, for this reason - it's a popular vote, in disguise. Under this method, Bush would have lost the last vote.

Remember, we're a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY - it has been agreed that if we were a true democracy, it would be mob rule, which the founding fathers wisely turned us away from!

Wouldn't this allow the minority groups better representation? It would be a popular vote if it was based on the total of all states combined in a popular vote, but since each state is allowed a separate calculation and each state has various total amount of elect votes. Now you could argue that it goes away from a two party system.

A popular vote would be considered all or none.

[luvmetender]

Originally Posted by tschmitt

bad idea, for this reason - it's a popular vote, in disguise. Under this method, Bush would have lost the last vote.

Ummm.... YES?

Remember, we're a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY - it has been agreed that if we were a true democracy, it would be mob rule, which the founding fathers wisely turned us away from!

And who would be in that "mob?"

Non-whites, women?

Ironically, you just backed up what I said in an earlier post about why the electoral college was put into place. To ensure that the elite white male population could correct the wrongs of the "masses."

I just didn't realize that people still think this way

[tschmitt]

Yes luv, some people still do think that way - that homosexuality is wrong, that abortion is wrong, and that this country should return to it's moral roots. (if you can't make the connection, don't worry - most liberals can't!)

[Twinplets]

Originally Posted by tschmitt

bad idea, for this reason - it's a popular vote, in disguise. Under this method, Bush would have lost the last vote.

Remember, we're a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY - it has been agreed that if we were a true democracy, it would be mob rule, which the founding fathers wisely turned us away from!

Well, IMO, Bush should have lost the election if he didn't win the popular vote. The electoral college system has some flaws if the president with the majority, or at least the plurality, doesn't win.

The republic versus democracy thing means we vote for representatives who then vote on the laws and such for us, without each and every bit of legislation being put to a popular vote. I don't agree that it has to mean that we can't vote for all of our representatives, namely the president, directly.

[luvmetender]

Originally Posted by tschmitt

Yes luv, some people still do think that way - that homosexuality is wrong, that abortion is wrong, and that this country should return to it's moral roots. (if you can't make the connection, don't worry - most liberals can't!)

Whoa! Where did THAT come from

I asked about non-whites and women and you jump to that statement???