NationStates Jolt Archive

They want to Change the "winner takes all" system...and give each candidate whatever piece of the pie they deserve.

Go Colorado!

Yeah, I really hope it passes. That's a huge step to admitting democracy is more important than disproportionate state powers.

Yeah, I really hope it passes. That's a huge step to admitting democracy is more important than disproportionate state powers.

You still get disproportionate powers, because the electoral votes are still determined by population rather than number of votes. Of course, this is closer to representative of what the actual vote returns look like... but don't think it's perfect.

You still get disproportionate powers, because the electoral votes are still determined by population rather than number of votes. Of course, this is closer to representative of what the actual vote returns look like... but don't think it's perfect.
Its closer to perfect than current system. Currently democrat votes count little in places like Texas. Under this syustem most votes still go to democrats like Kerry but republicans like Bush may get a few too.

Is it fair to do this in only one state, though? There's quite a few people in Colorado pissed off about this. Why? Because the vote of Colorado won't mean much anymore, and probably won't get as much attention from candidates. If we split the vote right now, Kerry would probably get 4, Bush would get 5. Either that, or Nader might get one. Either way, this state is fairly well split for this election, and in effect will only contribute one or two electoral votes to a candidate.

That's all fine and good, and I wouldn't have a big problem with this, however it looks pretty fishy, and that's another reason people here are ticked off. They're bringing this up for vote, but they're going around normal procedures (where the change wouldn't actually begin until after the presidential vote ... making the first actual split vote be the 2008 presidential election). Instead, they're talking about a pro-active movement, and it was proposed by an activist from California. It looks (not saying this is true, only that it's the perception of most people here) like a Kerry Democrat is rushing out to Colorado to put into effect a law that will basically eliminate what would be a gain of 9 for Bush and turn it into a gain of only 1.

I have no problem with this law, and actually think it's a good idea (a few states do this already), however, I don't like the way it looks as it stands ...

It was mentioned that Democrat votes tend not to count in places like Texas (and Colorado), but how about places like Massachusets, Pensylvania, and California where it's virtually useless to be a Republican? Divying up those 54 electoral votes in California to respective parties would make a /huge/ difference in the outcome of elections ... 40% of the population there is supposedly going to vote Republican. That takes away the 54 electoral votes and gives only a marginal 10 vote lead assuming Kerry takes all the rest. Let's do it in that state as well, eh?

Don't get me wrong ... I'm all for the electoral process being more representative (we still need the electoral college), but I don't think doing it to just one of the battleground states that will probably go republican /during/ an election year is right.

Is it fair to do this in only one state, though? There's quite a few people in Colorado pissed off about this. Why? Because the vote of Colorado won't mean much anymore, and probably won't get as much attention from candidates. If we split the vote right now, Kerry would probably get 4, Bush would get 5. Either that, or Nader might get one. Either way, this state is fairly well split for this election, and in effect will only contribute one or two electoral votes to a candidate.

That's all fine and good, and I wouldn't have a big problem with this, however it looks pretty fishy, and that's another reason people here are ticked off. They're bringing this up for vote, but they're going around normal procedures (where the change wouldn't actually begin until after the presidential vote ... making the first actual split vote be the 2008 presidential election). Instead, they're talking about a pro-active movement, and it was proposed by an activist from California. It looks (not saying this is true, only that it's the perception of most people here) like a Kerry Democrat is rushing out to Colorado to put into effect a law that will basically eliminate what would be a gain of 9 for Bush and turn it into a gain of only 1.

I have no problem with this law, and actually think it's a good idea (a few states do this already), however, I don't like the way it looks as it stands ...

It was mentioned that Democrat votes tend not to count in places like Texas (and Colorado), but how about places like Massachusets, Pensylvania, and California where it's virtually useless to be a Republican? Divying up those 54 electoral votes in California to respective parties would make a /huge/ difference in the outcome of elections ... 40% of the population there is supposedly going to vote Republican. That takes away the 54 electoral votes and gives only a marginal 10 vote lead assuming Kerry takes all the rest. Let's do it in that state as well, eh?

Don't get me wrong ... I'm all for the electoral process being more representative (we still need the electoral college), but I don't think doing it to just one of the battleground states that will probably go republican /during/ an election year is right.

I agree but not every state wants to let its people elect the people they don't like.

I find the ignorance of the electoral college on this thread frightening - and I happen to live in one of the large states which does not benefit from the safeguards of the electoral system.

For those of you too partisian to care about the history and safety provided by the elecotral college here are a few considerations.

"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.”

Colorado’s Republican Gov. Bill Owens is also critical of the measure and will be mobilizing opposition to it. Owens said the measure would make Colorado insignificant by diminishing the incentive for presidential candidates to pay attention to the state.

“For Colorado, for the next 100 years we wouldn’t have the ability to compete for the federal dollars, for highways, for base closings,” he said."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6106804

Read the whole thing or don't read it at all.

Personally I don't think that Colorado's plan is inherently good or bad, just not one size fits all. It would probably be a good idea for a lot of "safe" states to switch to this policy. For example, I live in New York, and we're pretty much in Kerry's pocket, probably by the double digits. As a result, when Republicans are in office we get screwed. Perhaps if we switched to Colorado's plan then Bush would get a little more affectionate even when he isn't trying to pimp us out for our 9/11 gravitas. If he stands to gain nothing and loose 26 electoral votes no matter how hard he tries we can't expect him to do much besides rip us off, but if he knew that being nice to us meant the difference between getting 6 electoral votes and 12 electoral votes even though he'll "loose" the state either way, well, then he might stop steeling our 9/11 funds.

I'd much rather the Electoral College be junked and votes be counted directly. It seems to have long since outlived its purpose.

I find the ignorance of the electoral college on this thread frightening - and I happen to live in one of the large states which does not benefit from the safeguards of the electoral system.

Am I missing something? I didn't see anyone on this thread ranting and raving that Gore won the popular vote but lost the election, and no one mentioned getting rid of the electoral college entirely (oops, just looked down and a new post did ... so except that). What people are talking about is a fairer way to distribute those electoral college votes, which might make more sense today than it would have back when the electoral college was initiated. Domici made a good point that candidates certainly aren't trying to do anything to help states, or even to visit them, when they're already decided votes.

I agree but not every state wants to let its people elect the people they don't like.

Uhh? I'm confused yet again. If a state goes one way or another, doesn't that mean automatically that the majority of voters voted for that person? Or if you're saying that the votes shouldn't be split, then you're arguing that the majority should rule the entire vote and ignore any minorities? Elaborate if you wouldn't mind.

I like what Colorado is considering and wish every state would do the same, but the simple fact is that neither party really wants this because they both benefit fromt he winner-take-all system. Imagine what the Democrats would be doing if they knew they didn't have all 55 of California's electoral votes in the bag. Or the same for the Republicans in Texas (fewer votes, I know, but same scenario). It forces them to change their entire electoral strategy. That shouldn't be enough to stop an change from occurring, but sadly, it is.

I like what Colorado is considering and wish every state would do the same, but the simple fact is that neither party really wants this because they both benefit fromt he winner-take-all system. Imagine what the Democrats would be doing if they knew they didn't have all 55 of California's electoral votes in the bag. Or the same for the Republicans in Texas (fewer votes, I know, but same scenario). It forces them to change their entire electoral strategy. That shouldn't be enough to stop an change from occurring, but sadly, it is.

No no, I don't think every state should split their vote this way. The "all or nothing" rule allows states like Wyoming to still have some sway. In fact, I'd propose that only states with more than "X" number of electoral votes should consider splitting their vote. I do think it's a bit rediculous that states like Texas and California have /quite/ that much sway over the choice and it's an all or nothing deal, but it's also their choice. I certainly wouldn't want to stomp on another state's rights.

Colorado is a rediculous test ground for this idea ... the funders and proposers of this ammendment should have tried it in California first, where they're from. It also looks extremely fishy that they didn't because they're democrats and California is probably going to vote democrat this year (while Colorado is a split vote that leans republican and would both consider this ammendment and be rendered useless by agreeing to it). Fishy fishy fishy.

See, I'm of the opinion that the split system would work best if the entire country did it. That would force candidates to try to appeal to a wider group instead of knowing that they have certain states secure and focusing on others. Does Mississippi really benefit from the fact that both Kerry and Bush know who's going to win there? I doubt there's been even a handful of ads run there. California is the same way, except that both candidates pop in here to raise money--Mississippi doesn't have as many rich folks, or they'd get that treatment as well.

So if you make every state competitive by splitting their votes, then suddenly there's a reason to talk to Mississippians and Californians. But it's hard to convince a single state to weaken their power like that, because that's what's happening--the state loses influence because it's no longer a prize. So that's why I say it ought to be everyone at the same time, instead of half-assing it.

You still get disproportionate powers, because the electoral votes are still determined by population rather than number of votes. Of course, this is closer to representative of what the actual vote returns look like... but don't think it's perfect.
I said it was a step towards the ideal, not the ideal itself. It certainly isn't - but I still really hope it passes. It might get more people motivated to change the system, if something like this can pass and be accepted in Colorado.

See, I'm of the opinion that the split system would work best if the entire country did it. That would force candidates to try to appeal to a wider group instead of knowing that they have certain states secure and focusing on others. Does Mississippi really benefit from the fact that both Kerry and Bush know who's going to win there? I doubt there's been even a handful of ads run there. California is the same way, except that both candidates pop in here to raise money--Mississippi doesn't have as many rich folks, or they'd get that treatment as well.

So if you make every state competitive by splitting their votes, then suddenly there's a reason to talk to Mississippians and Californians. But it's hard to convince a single state to weaken their power like that, because that's what's happening--the state loses influence because it's no longer a prize. So that's why I say it ought to be everyone at the same time, instead of half-assing it.

Actually, that's part of why I disagree ... it works great for the larger states, even maybe as large as Colorado with the 9 electoral votes because the candidates would compete for the votes ... but how about small states like Wyoming and Alaska? They wouldn't even rate looking at because they'd probably split their vote anyway and be virtually worthless to persue (from a vote-counting standpoint) unless they united their votes just as it is now.

So I think a partial system of split votes is the way to go, but it just can't be done one at a time like this.

This is a bad idea to only do in one state. It must either be nationwide, or not at all. (I would support it nationwide, btw).

Preferable would be removal of the college and direct popular vote.

Don't people in California, Texas, New York, Alaska, the entire South, Montana, etc. get mad that candidates NEVER campaign there or even spend a dime in their state? Isn't it funny that a handful of midwestern states and Florida pick the president?

But this specific instance, is a bad idea.

Personally I don't think that Colorado's plan is inherently good or bad, just not one size fits all. It would probably be a good idea for a lot of "safe" states to switch to this policy. For example, I live in New York, and we're pretty much in Kerry's pocket, probably by the double digits. As a result, when Republicans are in office we get screwed. Perhaps if we switched to Colorado's plan then Bush would get a little more affectionate even when he isn't trying to pimp us out for our 9/11 gravitas. If he stands to gain nothing and loose 26 electoral votes no matter how hard he tries we can't expect him to do much besides rip us off, but if he knew that being nice to us meant the difference between getting 6 electoral votes and 12 electoral votes even though he'll "loose" the state either way, well, then he might stop steeling our 9/11 funds.

See here your ignorance of the federalist system shows. Yes, it is true that NY and California and Texas and Illinois get stiffed by the president. But they get paid in spades in the house. These states pump out so many reps, you would have to be a dumb ass politician to not throw some cheese(pork) their way. If you dont, look forward to your bills getting stuck in committee. It doesnt even matter whether its a Dem or Republican controlled house. Keep these states happy or nothing gets done.

edit: I live in NY also

Preferable would be removal of the college and direct popular vote.True the Electoral College system is flawed....And Colorado's move is a step on the good direction...

Its against the Status-Quo

I find the ignorance of the electoral college on this thread frightening - and I happen to live in one of the large states which does not benefit from the safeguards of the electoral system.

For those of you too partisian to care about the history and safety provided by the elecotral college here are a few considerations.

"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.”

Colorado’s Republican Gov. Bill Owens is also critical of the measure and will be mobilizing opposition to it. Owens said the measure would make Colorado insignificant by diminishing the incentive for presidential candidates to pay attention to the state.

“For Colorado, for the next 100 years we wouldn’t have the ability to compete for the federal dollars, for highways, for base closings,” he said."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6106804

Read the whole thing or don't read it at all.
First off I live in Colorado, and I oppose this bill. I for once agree with Owens and say that this is just dumb. The Denver Post is calling Coorado the potential for the next Florida of the election. Also this would screw up our voting process even more. The state is still recovering from the comp. virus that delayed voting registration and the state was pretty much closed down for a week. And I also believe that teh campaingers have worked hard and they deserve the most reward for that...

Is it fair to do this in only one state, though? There's quite a few people in Colorado pissed off about this. Why? Because the vote of Colorado won't mean much anymore, and probably won't get as much attention from candidates. If we split the vote right now, Kerry would probably get 4, Bush would get 5. Either that, or Nader might get one. Either way, this state is fairly well split for this election, and in effect will only contribute one or two electoral votes to a candidate.

That's all fine and good, and I wouldn't have a big problem with this, however it looks pretty fishy, and that's another reason people here are ticked off. They're bringing this up for vote, but they're going around normal procedures (where the change wouldn't actually begin until after the presidential vote ... making the first actual split vote be the 2008 presidential election). Instead, they're talking about a pro-active movement, and it was proposed by an activist from California. It looks (not saying this is true, only that it's the perception of most people here) like a Kerry Democrat is rushing out to Colorado to put into effect a law that will basically eliminate what would be a gain of 9 for Bush and turn it into a gain of only 1.

I have no problem with this law, and actually think it's a good idea (a few states do this already), however, I don't like the way it looks as it stands ...

It was mentioned that Democrat votes tend not to count in places like Texas (and Colorado), but how about places like Massachusets, Pensylvania, and California where it's virtually useless to be a Republican? Divying up those 54 electoral votes in California to respective parties would make a /huge/ difference in the outcome of elections ... 40% of the population there is supposedly going to vote Republican. That takes away the 54 electoral votes and gives only a marginal 10 vote lead assuming Kerry takes all the rest. Let's do it in that state as well, eh?

Don't get me wrong ... I'm all for the electoral process being more representative (we still need the electoral college), but I don't think doing it to just one of the battleground states that will probably go republican /during/ an election year is right.

Actuly a new poll says that Kerry has 50% Bush 47% and Nader 2%