Rocky Mountain News: Opinion
Amendment 36 would require the state to allocate its nine electoral votes in proportion to the statewide popular vote instead of giving all of them to the winner. If it passes, Colorado would be the first state in the nation to have such a system.
There are many, many reasons why this is a bad idea. The only reason it seems favorable to some is that under such a system Al Gore would have won the 2000 election. But it would be the wrong choice. Consider if it went the other way in 2004 election.
The fact is that the United States of America is a republic and that the people are best served when the states retain their power. Splitting our electoral votes means that we would never see a Presidential contender again in Colorado. We would never be a swing state like we appear to be in this race. The electoral college defends less populace states from the population centers. I think there is room for tweaking the system, but doing away with it is a crazy idea.
Note that the group pushing this initiative is from California, yet they have not tried to push this idea there because it would mean splitting California's 55 electoral votes, which would all go to Kerry in this election.
States' rights are critical to maintaining a republic of this size and any effort to dilute our power should be stopped.
UPDATE
For further reading:
Coloradans to Consider Splitting Electoral College Votes
Plan would hurt small states (Note: Gov. Bill Owens (R) editoral.)
Colorado Initiative Could Be Key to Presidential Race
Colorado eyes electoral college
I've read a reasonably insightful article about this, which discusses an ideological basis for the electoral college, rather than discussing such political particulars about who would win a specific election. The article claims that the best reason to employ the electoral college is that it protects against a candidate winning an election by winning what it refers to as "little arts of popularity" (at least I believe that's what it was called). I do remember that this phrase means that in an election determined purely by populous vote, a candidate is more likely to win by garnering nearly all the votes in a specific, limited and isolated demographic.
ReplyDeleteFor example, in the upcoming election, let's suppose that the country is roughly split between John Kerry and George Bush, while most of the country's primary issues are foreign policy and the economy. Now, let's suppose George Bush has a slight edge, claiming 52% of the vote nationwide. Except that John Kerry has an immigration policy that is heavily favored by the Hispanic population and he was able to convince that population that George Bush spelled certain doom for them. John Kerry is able to garner 85% of the Hispanic voters and, by populous vote, wins the election. A parallel situation can be envisioned in which George Bush wins the election by exploiting his popularity with extreme religious conservaties, like the Mormon Church. (I'm not speaking from a particular bias, although I will say that I'm voting for John Kerry this November.)
The point is, and I think the argument should be, do we want to elect The President of the United States based on larger, national policies? Or, on smaller, individual issues? Does everybody really have their voice heard, on a more equal and democratic basis, if we elect a president to deal with the situation in Iraq based on a less significant issue, dealing with a relatively small tract of land in the American Southwest? Does this really serve democracy? Or justice for that matter? Is the article wrong on the underlying issue behind the electoral college?
I'm inclined to believe the article made a good point, although I'm still not sure I know what I believe the answer is to the question of the electoral college.