Post by Orwellian ProphecyPost by Serious SamPost by Mr Big SocietyThis is for People of Colorado. You are admonished to support
Amendment 36. This will rightfully split the electoral votes based on
a ratio between winner and loser. This will favor John F. Kerry.
It is being supported by a California multi-millionaire Jorge Klor de
Alva. People in California know better than people of Colorado to
decide the affairs of Colorado. However, we will not support this type
of ballot in California.
Remember, the Democrat Party supports this as well. Vote YES on 36 !
Good warning...
Fear is all the Right has to sell.
Lying loser!
The ammendment would strip less powerful states of their standing, a key
component in the electoral college.
http://www.members.aol.com/lwvco/AMEND36.html
Those opposed say:
* Should Coloradoans approve this ill-advised initiative, we are
virtually guaranteeing that all Presidential candidates will avoid our
state because the potential return on their investment is too low.
Except for extreme cases, such as 1992 when Colorado voters gave Ross
Perot over 23 percent of the vote, the winning candidate would only
receive one more electoral vote in Colorado than the loser. Colorado,
with nine electoral votes, currently has as much Electoral College clout
as Wyoming, South Dakota and Montana combined. If this measure passes,
Colorado will have one-third the influence of Washington, D.C.
* Voters should know that this initiative did not spring from grassroots
Coloradoans. It was sponsored by a group of wealthy Californians who
hired an Arizona company that paid people to circulate petitions in
Colorado.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_3190920,00.html
Vote against Amendment 36
State's influence at risk
September 18, 2004
We first spotted the electoral college initiative in May and nothing
since has changed our mind that it's a piece of political mischief. We
panned it then and urge a vote against it Nov. 2.
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. Forty-eight states are now
winner-take-all, and two - Maine and Nebraska - allocate electoral votes
to the winners of each congressional district, with the two extra ones
going to the statewide winner. In practice, neither state has ever
divided its votes.
Advertisement
The initiative is a transparent ploy by Democracts to try to salvage a
few more electoral votes for Sen. John Kerry in this year's election.
After all, if it had been in effect in 2000, the difference in
Colorado's allocation would have made Al Gore president.
Oddly enough, the initiative is being financed primarily by a
Californian. If he were truly interested in using Colorado as a
laboratory for a new political philosophy he wouldn't have had the
amendment "apply retroactively" to the current election. He would have
had it apply to future actions only, like other laws and constitutional
amendments.
Although we have yet to meet a Republican who favors the plan, we have
run into Democrats who oppose it. One of them is former Denver City
Councilwoman Susan Barnes-Gelt, who has even taken on one of the
initiative's prime backers, Sen. Ron Tupa of Boulder, in a televised
debate.
"It's one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard of," she said. "I'm
definitely against it."
Democrats are well aware that if Kerry suddenly took the lead in
Colorado, the initiative would end up hurting him instead of Bush.
That's why promotion of the initiative will likely come to a halt if the
polls change.
The best objection to the proposal is that it would minimize Colorado's
influence in presidential elections. Nine votes are worth pursuing. But
why would a candidate spend much effort here if the best he or she could
hope for is to turn a 4-5 margin into 5-4 margin?
There's also the danger that a change in Colorado could spur similar
moves elsewhere. Some say proportional electoral college voting might be
a worthwhile change if the entire nation adopted the system at once
through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But there's a huge
downside. As historians have noted, if voting had been proportional
nationwide in several recent elections, third-party candidates would
have effectively thrown them into the U.S. House by keeping either of
the major candidates from getting the necessary majority in the
electoral college.
If you favor making every person's vote count more, that's the worst
thing you could do. After all, when the House votes for president, each
state - large or small - gets only one vote! Think about the backroom
deals and the fights in the congressional delegations that are evenly
divided between the major parties.
You don't want an election settled in the House. It would make the
Supreme Court look like a paragon of populism. Nip proportional voting
in the bud. Vote "no" on Amendment 36.