86 Amendment 36

Post Game Show

2004-11-03T06:51:00.000-08:00

Amendment 36 was defeated 65-35 by the Colorado voters. As we can see from the electoral college results, passing this amendment could have proved to be critical in determining the outcome.

When I started this blog in August, I felt that there was very little awareness about this amendment. As the months went on, the parties got moving and the No on 36 organization came together. This was my first real experience of complete strangers motivated by a political cause coming together to win. It was educational and also a lot of fun.

I want to thank Katy for running such a great opposition organization with very few resources (at least until the last few weeks of the campaign).

Also, thanks to Peter who did the No on 36 website. Once that got going, things really started to turn around.

Finally, thank you to all of the other people who posted comments and content on this blog.

As I said before, it was truly incredible to watch total strangers come together for a common cause and come out on top.

The sole purpose of this blog was to defeat Amendment 36. Now that the goal has been achieved, I'll be signing off of this site.

Please continue to visit me over at Tyroblog.

AMENDMENT 36 DEFEATED!!!!

2004-11-02T18:24:00.000-08:00

The local Fox station has just called Amendment 36 as being defeated. Both sides of the issue have agreed. More updates and post game analysis to come.

DP Poll Shows 36 On Its Way Out

2004-10-29T11:30:00.000-07:00

This morning's DP poll shows that Amendment 36 is losing by a 55-31 margin with 14% undecided.

36 Still in Play - Vote NO!!!

2004-10-27T07:46:00.000-07:00

The effort to have Amendment 36 deemed unconstitutional by a federal judge failed on Tuesday. It's now up to the voters to decide.

Regardless of how much I hate this amendment, I am glad that this will be decided by voters and not by a judge. I feel relatively confident that the voters will reject this idea. After it's dead the pro-36 groups won't be able to cry foul or argue that the people were not allowed to decide.

The Yankees Win!!! - According to the Rules of 36

2004-10-22T07:18:00.000-07:00

Go to No on 36 to see how the logic of 36, if applied to the ALCS, would make the Yankees the winners.

New No on 36 TV Ad

2004-10-21T09:46:00.000-07:00

Click here to preview the No on 36 TV Ad.

36 is Dying

2004-10-20T06:53:00.000-07:00

Reader Sean W and Salazar v. Coors point out that a new Gallup poll shows 36 losing 53%-39% with 8% No Opinion.

When All Else Fails, Play the Race Card

2004-10-19T07:08:00.000-07:00

Diane Carman takes her shots at the Electoral College in this morning's DP:

Now, I don't want to spoil all the fun in sixth-grade American history class, but the Electoral College was not designed to preserve some high-minded concept of a republic. So spare me the letter-writing campaigns.

Read the actual statements of the founding fathers. The truth is the Electoral College was a blatant bribe to get the recalcitrant Southern colonies to agree to join the United States.

Given that large portions of the populations of the Southern states were slaves - who weren't allowed to vote and were only counted as three-fifths of a white person for purposes of congressional representation - the South wanted assurances that bleeding-heart Yankees weren't going to ruin their lavish way of life by voting to outlaw slavery.

Diane, we will absolutely spare you the letter-writing campaign. Instead will take our shots from the blogosphere.

Carman says read the actual statements from the founding fathers. Which ones? Here's a link the Federalist Paper 68. No mention on slavery or Southern states there. I'm not saying that this argument was never made, but in all the coverage of the Electoral College that Amendment 36 has brought, this is the first time I've seen this argument.

Other arguments regarding the Electoral College and the power of small versus large states can be found here in the comments section and here.

In fact, just start reading 86 36 or No on 36.

More educational than 6th grade history, with citations and references to back up the arguments.

36 - Dead Before the Election?

2004-10-15T11:12:00.000-07:00

This story points to a lawsuit that is challenging the consitutionality of 36 before it is even voted on. While I don't believe that there will be a ruling on this before the election, it does set the wheels in motion to deal with this issue should the amendment pass. We can all save ourselves a huge post-election headache by voting NO on 36.

NO ON 36 - Preserve Colorado's Presidential Voice

2004-10-12T14:31:00.000-07:00

86-36 has been linked at NO ON 36. Thanks!

More Polls Pointing to 36's Defeat

2004-10-11T14:27:00.000-07:00

A Mason-Dixon poll showing Amendment 36 losing by a margin of 44-35 is featured in this morning's DP.

Amendment 36 Losing Support

2004-10-10T14:50:00.000-07:00

As people take a look at Amendment 36, the support erodes. In a new Survey USA poll, it is a statistical tie - 45 For versus 44 Against.

Hat-tip: RealClear Politics

About 2 weeks ago, a RMN poll had it at 47 For and 35 Against.

This seems like a trend in the right direction.

It's Official - No One Supports 36

2004-10-10T14:13:00.000-07:00

In the Sunday DP, Coors and Salazar's state their positions on the proposed amendment: Do you support Amendment 36, which changes Colorado's Electoral College votes from winner- takes-all to proportional distribution?
Coors: No
Salazar: No

Comments and Emails - A Follow-Up

2004-10-08T06:45:00.000-07:00

Last week, a reader sent me an email asking where Coors and Salazar stand on Amendment 36. Today, the DP has the answer:

Top Democrats are shying away from the campaign to divide Colorado's electoral votes even though their fellow partisans spearheaded the effort.

Attorney General and U.S. Senate candidate Ken Salazar - the state's highest-ranking Democratic office holder - refuses to take a stand on Amendment 36.

Coors, however:
...strongly opposes Amendment 36 on the grounds, he said, that it would dilute Colorado's power.

"I'm opposed to having people from outside our state coming in here and stealing
our electoral votes," he said.

So there it is. Republicans oppose it and Democrats won't endorse it.

In keeping with the follow-up theme, Guy from Damascus Road sent me a copy of the email exchange he had with Reggie Rivers regarding Amendment 36 (I've removed the headers and just kept the main text - the email chain reads from bottom to top):

Reggie,

Under the provisions of your proposal, the proportional allocation of electoral votes perhaps makes some sense. However, you and I both know such a thing will never happen. This proposal is nothing but a blatant attempt by wealthy, out of state interests to garner a few electoral votes for Democrats. Quite frankly, I have a whole lot more faith in the wisdom of our Founding Fathers than that of well-heeled California political operatives.

In addition, as you well know, our nation is not, nor has it ever been, a pure democracy. Our nation is a constitutional republic; and as such, the “one man, one vote” principle that you mention is not entirely applicable.

Thanks for the reply and the debate.

Regards,

Guy Cannon

Go Broncos !

-------------------------

Hi Guy,

Thanks for the note. Yes, I would favor this system in California (where Democrats would lose a lot of votes). I favor it for every state. A presidential election is the only vote in the country in which a vote for one candidate actually gets converted into a vote for the other candidate.

If a Californian votes for Bush, that vote actually gets converted into a vote for Kerry, and Kerry walks away with 55 electoral votes as if every person in the state voted for him. It's not consistent with the principle of one person one vote.

Thanks,

Reggie

----------------------

Reggie,

Would you be in favor of the same system in California? If not, why? ‘Scuse me, just wanted to check your intellectual honesty.

Guy Cannon

Finally, a Joseph C. posted a comment here, asking how he could help:

Just wanted to express my support for the opposition to Amendment 36. When will we start seeing TV ads AGAINST this amendment? How can we help?

The answer is:

1. Go to No36.org. Click on Donate, fill out the form, send a check.

2. Make sure you tell everyone you know to vote no on 36.

3. Listen for the new radio add against 36. Call the talk shows to express your opposition.

4. Write a letter to the editor of every newspaper you can (hint, use the opposition's website to find the links to all the state's newspapers).

5. On November 2nd, VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 36!!!

NO ON 36 - Preserve Colorado's Presidential Voice

2004-10-07T06:41:00.000-07:00

The website is finshed. Check it out now!

I also heard the new radio commercial urging Coloradoans to VOTE NO ON 36. It was great! I was so excited to hear something on the radio about it. Finally, we may be getting some traction to defeat this thing.

An Official Site - At Last

2004-10-06T09:22:00.000-07:00

Finally, there is an official No on 36 website. It is still under construction, but keep checking back. It's linked on the right.

More Liberals Oppose 36

2004-10-06T09:20:00.000-07:00

See how hard-core Liberals feel about 36.

I Missed This Last Week...

2004-10-06T09:18:00.000-07:00

Governor Owens snagged some funding to defeat Amendment 36. The interesting part is that it came from Apollo Group, which counts as one of its associates, Klor De Alva, the supporter of Amendment 36.

At any rate, its good to see the Governor mobilizing against this idea and raising some funds.

Amendment 36 - Weekend Round-up

2004-10-03T10:24:00.000-07:00

In the past, I have posted here that the biggest obstacle in defeating Amendment 36 is apathy on the part of Colorado's politicos.

However, several articles in this weekend's Denver papers addressed Amendment 36 and the issues related to it. This stream of information will, I believe, help Coloradoans see the danger in passing this amendment.

On Friday, Reggie Rivers dedicated his second DP column in 2 weeks to this issue. I addressed his first column here. The thrust of this week's column was that opposing 36 on the grounds of diminishing Colorado's influence in Washington is invalid. While I disagree with him on this argument, here are 2 other reasons to oppose 36:

1. It is an attempt by out of state interests to swing the presidential election to their candidate,

And

2. It is an attempt to change the rules of the game once it has already been played.

On Saturday in the RMN, a roundtable discussion featuring Gov. Bill Owens, an opponent of 36, and Mark Grueskin, a proponent of 36 was featured.

Sunday, brought a series of letters to the editor in the DP regarding 36, mine among them. I've sent this same letter to about 15 newspapers statewide. The best part was, I used the proponent's website to identify where to send them.

In addition, Clay Calhoun has a copy of an email he received from Ted Halaby, Chairman of the Colorado Republicans, urging Republicans to vote NO on 36.

The sum of all these articles and letters is to further educate voters in Colorado on the ridiculousness of this amendment.

However, there is still more that needs to be done. Donate to this cause at the address below and on November 2nd, VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 36.

Coloradoans Against a Really Stupid Idea
Katy Atkinson, Registered Agent
1009 Grant Street #204
Denver, CO 80203
303-861-9440

Letter to the Editor in the DP

2004-10-03T09:31:00.000-07:00

Below is the text of my letter to the editor, published in Sunday's DP:

Like many other Coloradans, I oppose Amendment 36 because of the damage it would do to Colorado's standing among the rest of the states. This amendment, which is opposed by Republicans and Democrats alike, would reduce the number of electoral votes that any one candidate could receive from Colorado. In doing so, the state's influence in Washington would diminish because, after the election, the winning candidate would have no incentive to support federal spending in a state where there is nothing to gain in the next election cycle.

However, there are more reasons to oppose Amendment 36. This amendment would take effect retroactively to influence the 2004 election. This is clearly an attempt to swing the results of a close Electoral College vote to the candidate who doesn't necessarily win the majority of the popular vote in Colorado. In addition, this amendment is being financed by a political organization in California. Apparently, supporters would rather manipulate the election in Colorado than in their own state.

Proponents of Amendment 36 will say, "The Electoral College doesn't allow every vote to count," but every vote does count within the state in which it is cast. This is the system that was set up to ensure manageable national elections, while allowing each person within a state to have a voice in the political process.

Whether you are Democrat, Republican or independent, passage of this amendment could swing this election and future elections in the opposite direction of the will of the majority of Colorado voters. Vote "no" on Amendment 36.

A Call for Help

2004-09-29T15:52:00.000-07:00

Red State is joining the call for help to DEFEAT AMENDMENT 36.

Why is this a call for help? As Chris Floyd puts it:

All the major papers in Colorado are against Amendment 36. The Governor is against it. Basically, all the political cognoscenti (except rabid partisans and glassy-eyed fools like a particular state rep from Boulder) know it's a terrible, terrible idea.

...And so they are not fighting against it.

The biggest obstacle to overcome in defeating this idea is APATHY!!!

NO on 36 - Something Liberals and Conservatives Can Agree On

2004-09-29T11:32:00.000-07:00

Colorado Luis continues his battle with the RMPN over Amendment 36.

Make sure you read the comments, too!

MSNBC - Split Colorado's electoral votes?

2004-09-29T07:27:00.000-07:00

Good article about Amendment 36 at MSNBC.

From the Kerry camp:
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.”

This will be the attitude of all future candidates if this measure passes.

From the Kerry-Edwards Online Forum....

2004-09-28T06:45:00.000-07:00

Even Kerry-Edwards supporters dislike the idea of Amendment 36.

Mile High Delphi: Amendment 36 Losing Support

2004-09-28T06:17:00.000-07:00

Mile High Delphi has new projections up showing that Amendment 36 is losing by a margin of 59% - 41%a>.

Coors, Salazar, and Amendment 36

2004-09-27T14:35:00.000-07:00

A reader sent me an email asking the following question:

"Where do Coors and Salazar stand on this? Their race seems like a logical place to get 36 more public and defeated."

Frankly, I don't have an answer. I checked the websites and saw no mention of Amendment 36. I didn't do a deep dive, so if there are any experts on the race, please comment and let me know the answer. I'm sure the gents at the Rocky Mountain Alliance have some info or could get a post going regarding 36 and the candidates on their Salazar v. Coors blog.

If I had to make a guess, I would say that Coors opposes 36 because most Republicans do. Salazar is a little more difficult because he has recently distanced himself from the Kerry campaign, but since this is a Democratic-backed proposal, he may tow the party line and support it.

Anyone with any additional information, please pass it on.

Amendment 36 Cartoon

2004-09-27T07:26:00.000-07:00

Nice political cartoon about Amendment 36.

EC - Part 4

2004-09-24T07:35:00.000-07:00

Below is the final part of Pat Wilkes 4-part series on the Electoral College:

PART 4 AMENDMENT 36 A DISADVANTAGE FOR COLORADO
The great disadvantage of the proportional plan proposed in Colorado if it were adopted nation-wide: it would encourage minority parties and increase the likelihood that no one candidate would receive the required 270 electoral votes. In short, Congress might control more presidential elections than ever before. And if the House and Senate were (a) under the control of different parties and (b) also had very narrow partisan majorities in both houses, then they probably would not even be able to choose a president or vice-president.
The combined total population of the ten largest cities in the US is more than 23 million. The entire population of the mountain region of the US is 16 million. If you take the 10 largest metropolitan areas, not just the largest cities, the difference is even greater. If we moved to proportional voting as Amendment 36 suggests, this disparity in population would allow a candidate to focus resources, time, and political capital in winning the greatest numbers of voters in the cities. This pressure would apply to all parties, and would lead candidates to ignore voters in the sparsely populated West completely.

Water Rights. An example of a situation where the interests of a metropolitan area directly conflict with the interests of a state or region is river water for Los Angeles (pop. 3.7 million) from Colorado (pop. 4.3 million). A direct election would focus candidates’ resources on large cities such as Los Angeles. The debate would naturally center on local issues that directly affected Los Angeles citizens. Los Angeles derives a great deal of its water from the Colorado river, originating in the Rocky Mountains. The amount of water reserved for California impacts Colorado significantly and directly, and its use results in contention.

Competing interests like these are best served by compelling candidates to campaign in smaller states and address our issues. If a direct election or proportional EC votes were instituted, Colorado's voters would receive less attention, because a candidate would have to campaign over the entire state (the 8th largest in area) for a smaller number of votes than the geographically much smaller city of Los Angeles.

Thus, the intent of the EC is to favor a candidate whose appeal is more broadly distributed on a geographical basis across the nation. This may lead to the rare circumstance of giving the election to a candidate who did not win a majority, or even a plurality, of the popular vote. This is seen as preferable to giving the election to a candidate who is favored by a majority of voters but whose support is concentrated in fewer regions or only by voters in large states.

Corruption Limited. An additional reason in favor of the EC is that by having fifty-one separate elections, corruption in any single state is limited to the electoral votes of that state. Corruption is most likely to occur in a state in which there is not strong two party competition. If strong party machines in one party states could add phantom votes to a national total in close elections, the temptation to do so would be irresistible.

Although there were a few anomalies in the early history of the EC, none have occurred in the past century. Proposals to abolish the EC, though frequently put forward, have failed largely because the alternatives to it appear more problematic than the EC itself.

The current EC system unifies the nation by forcing a presidential candidate to gain support from all regions of the nation. In addition, the EC system is democratic, in that it gives minorities in heavily populated urban centers greater electoral power. Moreover, in a very close election, the influence of the small states remains important. Furthermore, the EC preserves of the two-party system (and political stability). Under the EC, third, or splinter, parties have a very difficult time either winning the presidency or forcing the election into the House and Senate.

The EC has performed its function for over 200 years (and in over 50 presidential elections) by ensuring that the President of the United States has both sufficient popular support to govern and that his popular support is sufficiently distributed throughout the country to enable him to govern effectively. No presidential election in over 170 years has been decided by the House of Representatives. Hence, there is no reason to tamper with a design that has stood the test of time and one which is clearly superior to any suggested reform.

Joshua and Littwin Agree on 36

2004-09-23T16:37:00.000-07:00

Joshua has a great post regarding Amendment 36 and RMN's columnist Mike Littwin.

EC - Part 3

2004-09-23T16:14:00.000-07:00

Below is part 3 of Pat Wilkes 4-part series on the Electoral College

PART 3 EC PROMOTES 2-PARTY SYSTEM, MAINTAINS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Last week we reviewed two reasons to vote NO on proposed Amendment 36. Our current winner-take-all Electoral College system:
1. contributes to the unity of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president—the winner must demonstrate both a sufficient popular support as well as a sufficient distribution of that support to govern.
2. strengthens the status of minority interests—the votes of small minorities within a state may make the difference between winning all of a state’s electoral votes or none of them.
3. contributes to political stability of the nation by promoting a two-party system—protects each administration from impassioned but transitory third party movements and forces the major parties to absorb the interests of minorities; and
4. maintains a federal system of government and representation.
This week, we’ll review two additional reasons.

3. There can be no doubt that the Electoral College contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two party system. It is extremely difficult for a new or minor party to win enough popular votes in enough states to have a chance of winning the presidency. Even if it won enough electoral votes to force the decision into the House of Representatives, a party would still have to have a majority of over half the state delegations to elect its candidate—and in that case, it would hardly be a minor party.

Avoids Extremism. The practical effect of the EC (along with the district system in the House of Representatives) is to force third party movements into one of the two major parties. Conversely, the major parties have every incentive to absorb minor parties in their attempt to win popular majorities in the states. By this assimilation, third party movements compromise their more radical views if they hope to attain any of their more generally acceptable objectives. Thus we end up with two large, pragmatic political parties which tend to the center of public opinion rather than dozens of smaller political parties catering to divergent and sometimes extremist views. In other words, our system forces political coalitions to occur within the parties rather than within the government.

Direct popular election of the president would likely have the opposite effect because there would be every incentive for a many minor parties to form to try to prevent a popular majority. Surviving candidates would thus be drawn to the regionalist or extremist views represented by these parties in hopes of winning the run-off election.

The result of a direct popular election for president, then, would likely be a frayed and unstable system characterized by many political parties and by radical changes in policies from one administration to the next. The EC system, by contrast, encourages parties to coalesce divergent interests into two sets of cohesive alternatives. Such organization of social conflict and political debate contributes to the political stability of the nation.

4. Finally, the EC maintains a federal system of government and representation. In our formal federal structure, important political powers are reserved to the individual states. The House was designed to represent the states according to their population. The states are even responsible for drawing the district lines for their House seats. The Senate was designed to represent each state equally regardless of population. And the EC was designed to represent each state's choice for the presidency (each state's electoral votes is the number of two Senators plus the number of its Representatives). To abolish the EC system in favor of a proportional system or nationwide popular election would strike at the very heart of the federal structure laid out in our Constitution and would lead to the nationalization of our central government—to the detriment of the states.

Abolish Senate, Too? Indeed, if we become obsessed with government by popular majority as the only consideration, shouldn’t we then abolish the Senate which represents States regardless of population? Should we not correct the minor distortions in the House (caused by districting and by guaranteeing each state at least one Representative) by changing it to a system of proportional representation? This would accomplish "government by popular majority" and guarantee the representation of minority parties, but it would also demolish our federal system of government. If there are reasons to maintain State representation in the Senate and House as they exist today, then surely these same reasons apply to the choice of president. Why, then, apply a sentimental attachment to popular majorities only to the EC?

The fact is the original design of our federal system of government was thoroughly and wisely debated by the Founders. State viewpoints, they decided, are more important than political minority viewpoints. And the collective opinion of the individual state populations is more important than the opinion of the national population taken as a whole. Nor should we tamper with the careful balance of power between the national and state governments which the Founders intended and which is reflected in the EC. To do so would fundamentally alter the nature of our government and might well bring about consequences that even the reformers would come to regret.

Defeat Amendment 36

2004-09-22T11:32:00.000-07:00

I just got off the phone with the office of Katy Atkinson which is heading up the organized opposition to Amendment 36 in Colorado. I asked why there was no website or other media to tell voters about Amendment 36 and the damaging effects it will have for Colorado. The answer was that no money has come in to fund these efforts.

There are a couple of reasons for this:
1. People think there is no way this will pass, so they aren't giving money to defeat it.
2. Both Republican and Democratic parties are locked in their own races for President and Senate and House seats so the funds are not available to put toward defeating this Amendment.

The supporters of Amendment 36 are funded by the wealthy Klor de Alva from California.

If you oppose Amendment 36, the address to send contributions is:
Coloradans Against a Really Stupid Idea
Katy Atkinson, Registered Agent
1009 Grant Street #204
Denver, CO 80203
303-861-9440

Since these contributions are not for a candidate they can be from anyone, anywhere, and of any amount.

Donate today!!!

Wake Up, Colorado!!!!

2004-09-22T06:34:00.000-07:00

Clay Calhoun has links to 2 articles run by the RMN about Amendment 36.

According to the RMN, the Amendment is winning 47-35.

Clay aptly points out:
It's time for all of Colorado to wake up and smell the coffee. Amendment 36 is a measure to reward the looser of an election with a participation ribbon. Politics, at the electoral college level, is winner take all. Participation ribbons shouldn't determine the President of the United States.

Spread the word: VOTE NO ON 36!!!!

Electoral College History - Part 2

2004-09-22T06:15:00.000-07:00

Below is Part 2 of Pat Wilkes 4-part series on the history of the Electoral College:

PART 2 EC PROMOTES UNITY AND ENHANCES MINORITY INTERESTS
There are many reasons to vote NO on proposed Amendment 36. Our current winner-take-all Electoral College system:
1. contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president
2. enhances the status of minority interests,
3. contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system, and
4. maintains a federal system of government and representation.

1. Strong regional interests/loyalties have played a great role in American history. The EC system contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president. Without the EC system, the president would be selected either through the domination of one populous region over the others or through the domination of large metropolitan areas over the rural ones. It is because of the EC that presidential nominees are inclined to select vice presidential running mates from a region other than their own.

In 2004 no one region contains the absolute majority (270) of electoral votes required to elect a president. Thus, presidential candidates have an incentive to pull together coalitions of states/regions rather than to exaggerate regional differences and divide the country. Such a unifying mechanism seems wise when we see the severe regional problems that have typically plagued geographically large nations such as China, India, Russia, and even, in its time, the Roman Empire.

This unifying mechanism does not, however, come without a small price. The price is that it is possible that the candidate who wins a slight majority of popular votes may not be the one elected president in very close popular elections (as in 1888 and 2000)—depending on whether his popularity was concentrated in a few states or whether it was more evenly distributed across the states. Yet as a practical matter, the popular difference between the two candidates would likely be so small that either candidate could govern effectively.

The practical value of requiring a distribution of popular support outweighs whatever sentimental value may attach to obtaining a bare majority of popular support. Indeed, the EC system is designed to work in a rational series of defaults: if, first, a candidate receives a substantial majority of the popular vote, then that candidate is virtually certain to win enough electoral votes to be elected president; second, in the event that the popular vote is extremely close, then the election defaults to that candidate with the best distribution of popular votes (as evidenced by obtaining the absolute majority of electoral votes); third, in the event the country is so divided that no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes, then the choice of president defaults to the states in the U.S. House of Representatives. One way or another, then, the winning candidate must demonstrate both a sufficient popular support to govern as well as a sufficient distribution of that support to govern.

2. Far from diminishing minority interests by depressing voter participation, the current EC system actually enhances the status of minority groups. This is because the voters of even small minorities in a state may make the difference between winning all or none of that state's electoral votes. Since ethnic minority groups happen to concentrate in states with the most electoral votes, they assume an importance to presidential candidates well out of proportion to their number. The same principle applies to other special interest groups such as environmentalists, labor unions, farmers, etc.

It is because of this "leverage effect" that the presidency, as an institution, tends to be more sensitive to ethnic minority and other special interest groups than does the Congress as an institution. Changing to a direct election of the president would therefore actually damage minority interests since their votes would be overwhelmed by a national popular majority.
For a history of the development of the Electoral College, see William C. Kimberling's essay, A Brief History of the Electoral College, FEC National Clearinghouse on Election Administration, at http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf. Kimberling is the Deputy Director of the FEC's Office of Election Administration. This article provides a historical interpretation of the Electoral College.

DP Opposes Amendment 36

2004-09-21T07:34:00.000-07:00

First the RMN, then the DP, but we still need to spread the word: VOTE NO ON 36.

Colorado Amendment 36 - A Historical Perspective

2004-09-21T07:19:00.000-07:00

The article below is the first of a 4-part series on the history of the Electoral College and the negative effects that Amendment 36 would have on it, if passed.

This article was authored by Pat Wilkes and sent to me via email. I'll post parts 2-4 as the week goes on.

PART 1 COLORADO BENEFITS FROM WINNER-TAKE-ALL ELECTORAL SYSTEM

In our November election, Coloradoans will have to decide on a ballot proposition that would award electoral votes on a straight proportional basis. The Electoral College has served us well over all our nation’s history, and there seems no reason to change it in Colorado except to satisfy current political resentment.

Forty-eight of 50 states have developed winner-take-all systems where the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes statewide receives all its electoral votes. The proportional distribution of electoral votes proposed for Colorado has never been accepted by any state.

States Important. The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College for two reasons. First, the EC was never intended to reflect the national popular will. The Founders insisted that the President be elected by the states, not by the people. They felt it important that the "sense of the people" be taken into account, but they gave authority to independent electors from each state.

In a pure democracy, said James Madison in Federalist No. 10, November 22, 1787, “measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true…”

Mobocracy. The Founders were rightfully wary of direct election to the Presidency. They feared that a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. They were afraid of “mobocracy” and “popular passions.”

Madison, Hamilton, and other federalists believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the EC no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped. The founders also believed that the EC had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others.

Second, the EC reflects the structure of the government over which the Great Compromise was fought to create a democratic Republic—it gives power and voice to smaller states which would otherwise be overcome and ruled by more populous ones. The Electoral College was crafted as part of the compromise made at the Constitutional Convention between larger and smaller states to satisfy the small states. The Framers rejected direct election not because they doubted public intelligence, but because they feared that the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous states with little regard for the smaller ones. The EC was designed to protect a smaller state’s interest (like Colorado’s) against the will of a more populous state.

Those who want to abolish the EC say that it over-represents rural populations. However, this is exactly why it, as well as the United State Senate with two seats per state regardless of population, was designed. In fact, the Senate over-represents rural populations far more dramatically. There have been no serious proposals to abolish the United States Senate on these grounds—even from Hillary Clinton—so why should such an argument be used to abolish the Electoral College? Simply because the presidency represents the whole country? As an institution, so does the Senate.

Colorado is exactly one of the states that the winner-take-all system benefits. Proposed Amendment 36 would minimize Colorado's influence in presidential elections. Our nine votes are significant enough to pursue. But why would a candidate spend effort here if the most he could hope for is to flip a 4-5 margin into 5-4 margin?

Cross-posted at TyroBlog

Gov. Bill Owens on 36

2004-09-20T12:42:00.001-07:00

Governor Owens has a column in USA Today on Amendment 36. Not surprisingly, he opposes it.

RMN Says Vote No on 36

2004-09-20T06:45:00.000-07:00

Glad to see the RMN opposing 36 this weekend.

As I've said before, I believe that given the facts, voters will strike down this amendment. However, my concern is a lack of voter education on the issue.

This column helped spread the word about the problems with 36.

Cross-posted at TyroBlog

Reggie Rivers' Take on 36

2004-09-17T06:54:00.000-07:00

Reggie Rivers has this column on Amendment 36 in this morning's DP.

In this column, he states that:
"...your vote actually gets converted into an endorsement of the person you voted against."

He then goes onto give an example of a neighborhood barbeque in which food selections are based on a winner take all system.

Objections to this being an out-of-state attempt to garner a few extra electoral votes for Kerry aside and the fact that it would relegate Colorado's electoral status to that of Wyoming, here are my thoughts.

Since we're using simple analogies, I'd like to put another one out there for Reggie. I assume he'll understand this one:

In a normal NFL season, there are 16 games. In each game, the winner is determined by who scores the most points. Say your team wins 9 games and scores 20 points in each of those wins. In the 7 games that your team loses, you only score 10 points. At the end of the season, you've scored 250 points.

Another team wins 10 games and scores 7 points in each win, and loses 6 games and scores 3 points in each win. At the end of the season this team has scored 88 points.

Who goes to the playoffs? The team with the most wins, of course, even though they scored less points throughout the season.

Football and voting - not necessarily the same thing, but the point is that at the outset of the season, every player knew the rules and what it would take to make the playoffs. The rules didn't change during Week 7 of the season to give out proportionate wins and loses.

That's my main beef with Amendment 36: It changes the rules for electoral votes for an election that is already well underway.

Rivers' point is that if your candidate loses, your vote goes to the person you voted against. But that doesn't mean that your vote didn't count. It most certainly counted within your state. We do elections on a state by state basis because to do it using the popular vote on a national level would be a logistical nightmare, as described in this column by the WSJ Opinion Journal.

If every state in the U.S used the proportional system and the change came in a non-election year, I most certainly would agree to it, but for Colorado to make the change alone means that we'll be playing the game according to different rules than the rest of the country.

Cross-posted at TyroBlog

Defense of the Electoral College

2004-09-08T13:33:00.000-07:00

The WSJ’s Opinion Journal has an analysis of the Electoral College debate. A few key points:

1. Using the Popular Vote would not necessarily mean a candidate would win with a majority:
In six postwar elections--1948, 1960, 1968, 1992, 1996 and 2000--no candidate had a popular majority. If it's an outrage against majority rule that President Bush was elected while receiving only 47.9% of the popular vote, would it be that much less so if Mr. Gore had won with 48.4%? And what about Bill Clinton, who mustered a mere 43% of the popular vote in 1992?

2. The Popular Vote would encourage nasty recount demands and legal challenges in every county. While, "Let Every Vote Count," may be the rallying cry of voter reform activists, the practicality of using the Popular Vote would throw national elections into gridlock. The Electoral College serves the function of making each vote count within each state, while providing a feasible way of holding national elections.

3. Any Constitutional changes to the Electoral College would have to be approved by 38 state legislatures, most of which would be voting against their self-interests

The article also reviews Colorado’s Amendment 36, calling it:

…a transparently partisan effort to give Mr. Kerry a few additional electoral votes, and Coloradans, even those who support the Democrat, would be foolish to back a measure that would diminish their state's influence by taking most of its electoral votes out of play.

Cross-posted at TyroBlog

Even the Left Opposes 36

2004-08-31T15:37:00.000-07:00

As part of my effort to defeat Amendment 36, I have been browsing the blogs of the Colorado Left. I came across this post from Colorado Luis opposing this Amendment:

All it does is take the one aspect of the Electoral College that favors large states over small ones -- the winner take all feature that ensures that every vote in California or Florida matters far more than any vote in Wyoming or South Dakota -- and obliterates it in the single case of Colorado, thus reducing the potential power of each vote in Colorado to a level below that of the smallest state or even D.C.

Just because they are left of the political spectrum doesn't make them dumb.

Splitting Electoral Votes: A Historical Perspective

2004-08-31T06:54:00.000-07:00

The RMN ran an update to an earlier story about the effects of electoral vote splitting on past elections.

In summary, the RMN concludes that the elections in 1948, 1968, 1992, and 2000 would have resulted in no candidate getting enough electoral votes and the election being sent to the House of Representatives to decide. It concludes:

Four postwar elections chosen by the House of Representatives rather than by the people! Surely Coloradans will see through this anti-democratic amendment and reject it.

I don't know the method they used (the article refers to the WSJ for the analysis), but as I posted here, other analysis shows that Bush would have won the 2000 election handily when applying the split vote system to all 50 states.

What would have happened had the split vote system been applied everywhere is not really the point. What is important is that outside interests are using Colorado to swing a close election to John Kerry.

Even if we assume that the interests that support 36 are not aligned with a particular candidate, the fact that they are trying to change the rules during the game should raise alarms in voters' minds.

Cross-posted at TyroBlog

Spreading The Word

2004-08-30T06:56:00.000-07:00

Special Thanks to Clay, Guy, and Joshua for plugging this site.

Welcome to all newcomers and please feel free to comment or contribute.

Response to My Letter to the Editor

2004-08-27T06:45:00.000-07:00

I spoke with my grandma last night and she complimented me on my letter to the editor. She also said that her friends mentioned that they hadn't heard much about Amendment 36, but that after reading my letter, they would vote against it.

I feel like such a political powerbroker.

Seriously though, this is why I started 86-36. There hasn't been a lot of coverage of this Amendment. I think there will be more press closer to the election, but in the days of early and absentee voting, we need to be sure that people are informed now.

Cross-posted at TyroBlog

No Attention Means No Representation

2004-08-26T07:03:00.000-07:00

Check out my very first letter to the editor regarding Amendment 36. This is my hometown newspaper that I grew up reading. I wrote in response to a letter calling for support of Amendment 36. Since I doubt that this issue is getting much attention in the Upper Arkansas Valley, I felt a duty to bring the facts to the people of Canon City.

Cross-posted at TyroBlog.

Letters to the Editor on 36

2004-08-23T06:22:00.000-07:00

For some reason I have been paying more attention to letters to the editor lately. Here's one from this morning's DP:

David Harsanyi argues that the movement to determine Colorado's electoral votes on a proportional basis rather than on a winner-take-all basis is a 'radical change' that would 'dilute Colorado's already faint voice' in the election. Electing our public officials on the basis of who gets the most votes is the basis of democracy, isn't it?

Harsanyi argues that 'if New York, California, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania or a host of other states had employed such a (proportional) system, Bush would have won, easily.' That's nonsense. By selecting which states are included in proportional voting and which are not, you could produce any result you want. In all fairness, all states should go to a proportional system.
Bob Kropfli, Golden

Nonsense indeed, Bob! Let's see what would happen if every state used the system proposed under Amendment 36. Jeff Sagarin (yes, the guy that does the football polls) has already done the analysis. It turns out that if the entire country had used this electoral system in 2000, President Bush would have still won. However, instead of winning by 4 electoral votes, he would have won by 36 electoral votes.

Cross-posted at TyroBlog

George Will on 36

2004-08-22T17:03:00.000-07:00

More national attention on Amendment 36. This time from George Will:

Suppose Kerry wins Colorado (in 2000 Bush won with 50.8 percent; Kerry's campaign says their man is leading today). And suppose winner-take-all is ended. Kerry will harvest five instead of nine electoral votes. He could lose the presidency by seven electoral votes (Gore lost by five), less than the eight-vote swing that Colorado's new system would produce. That would be poetic justice, the best kind.

As stated before, I think that however this presidential election turns out, this Amendment is a bad idea.

Cross-posted at TyroBlog

Hat-tip: Best Destiny

Maine Vote Splitting

2004-08-21T10:04:00.000-07:00

I don't usually pay much attention to Slate.com, but I found this article by Julia Turner on Maine's system of splitting electoral votes. This is the type of system that Amendment 36 backers propose. However, Turner doesn't think this is such a good idea:

In any event, some political reformers think we should be taking more of our cues from Maine. Proponents of revamping the Electoral College have suggested that every state adopt Maine's peculiar electoral vote-splitting scheme. At first, I thought this was a brilliant idea. Although vote-splitting sounds bizarre, it actually makes a lot of sense—it's a thoughtful way to ensure that the electoral votes Maine casts more closely reflect the wishes of its people. But then I found this Web site, on which sports statistics guru Jeff Sagarin figured out how the 2000 presidential election would have been decided if all states used the Maine method. Turns out Gore would have been whupped. Ah well. Perhaps there's a better way.

The Jeff Sagarin website she refers to is linked here.

So, we have a blatantly liberal columnist saying that this isn't such a good idea, if it is applied to all states and everyone used the same system, because the 2000 election wouldn't have been close. But if applied to certain purported battleground states, like Colorado (I don't think it will even be close), it might make some sense.

Just provides more evidence that the liberals only want voting reform if it benefits them.

Cross-posted at TyroBlog

Maybe It Won't Be Much of a Fight

2004-08-21T09:01:00.000-07:00

In Bob Ewegen's column in the RMN this morning, he tackles TABOR and Amendment 36.

My interest is in Amendment 36. However, Ewegen doesn't think this will be much of a fight:

Finally, Amendment 36 specifies that, if passed, it will apply retroactively to this election. Such an ex post facto change in our electoral law is probably unconstitutional, so if Colorado voters do approve the measure, it is certain to be challenged in court by whatever party actually carried our electoral vote. Thus, if the 2004 election is close, we might have another long count in the presidential arena, with Colorado courtrooms replacing Florida venues in yet another bitter legal battle that would ultimately have to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Weighing their odds with Scalia and Co., Colorado Democrats are deciding they'd rather be president than irrelevant - and are joining Republicans in opposing Amendment 36.

I've received similar comments from other bloggers who have seen the "86-36" blog.

While I don't believe that this Amendment will pass, it's still important to make sure that voters don't get complacent and let the vocal majority (supported by billionaires from California) slide this one past us.

Cross-posted at TyroBlog

More on 36

2004-08-19T06:27:00.000-07:00

David Harsanyi makes a great case for defeating Amendment 36 in this morning's DP:

The activists who want to radically change the way we elect the president make it sound like a matter of common sense.

They'll tell you that changing the current electoral process will simply "make every vote count." That it's a much "fairer" way to count the votes than the current "winner take all" system.

Don't fall for it.

The conniving rhetoric of Amendment 36 and its proponents masks a simple, irrefutable point: It would dilute Colorado's already faint voice in the presidential contest and make us the lone state to allocate electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote.

He continues:

And were Amendment 36 advocates calling and moving for a direct popular vote nationwide, a legitimate debate about the pros and cons of direct democracy could ensue.

But it's not about that, either.

Klor de Alva and his group only typify the shortsighted, win-at-all-costs character of this year's presidential race. The question now is, will the Democratic Party in Colorado follow his lead?

Shortsighted indeed. Check out this post by Joshua at View From a Height:

When I asked him (Democratic State Senator Ron Tupa (D-Boulder))specifically about what happens after the next reapportionment, if we get 10 electoral votes, he said he didn't know what the formula required, that he "didn't think that anyone there had thought this thing through that far, and that it would be at least 10 years before that happened." (Hint: 2012 - 2004 = 8.) That's thinking ahead.

Cross-posted at: TyroBlog

Welcome to 86-36

2004-08-18T11:35:00.000-07:00

This blog is dedicated to posting the opposition's view of Colorado Amendment 36. The term "86" is commonly used when you want to "get rid" of something. The name was thrown around during a recent Hugh Hewitt show and was also mentioned in a post over at Best Destiny.

The posts on this blog will highlight the reasons why Colorado voters should vote against Amendment 36 on November 2, 2004.

For a good start to the discussion, see this post on TyroBlog.

86 Amendment 36

Post Game Show

AMENDMENT 36 DEFEATED!!!!

DP Poll Shows 36 On Its Way Out

36 Still in Play - Vote NO!!!

The Yankees Win!!! - According to the Rules of 36

New No on 36 TV Ad

36 is Dying

When All Else Fails, Play the Race Card

36 - Dead Before the Election?

NO ON 36 - Preserve Colorado's Presidential Voice

More Polls Pointing to 36's Defeat

Amendment 36 Losing Support

It's Official - No One Supports 36

Comments and Emails - A Follow-Up

NO ON 36 - Preserve Colorado's Presidential Voice

An Official Site - At Last

More Liberals Oppose 36

I Missed This Last Week...

Amendment 36 - Weekend Round-up

Letter to the Editor in the DP

A Call for Help

NO on 36 - Something Liberals and Conservatives Can Agree On

MSNBC - Split Colorado's electoral votes?

From the Kerry-Edwards Online Forum....

Mile High Delphi: Amendment 36 Losing Support

Coors, Salazar, and Amendment 36

Amendment 36 Cartoon

EC - Part 4

Joshua and Littwin Agree on 36

EC - Part 3

Defeat Amendment 36

Wake Up, Colorado!!!!

Electoral College History - Part 2

DP Opposes Amendment 36

Colorado Amendment 36 - A Historical Perspective

Gov. Bill Owens on 36

RMN Says Vote No on 36

Reggie Rivers' Take on 36

More Posts on 36

Defense of the Electoral College

Even the Left Opposes 36

Splitting Electoral Votes: A Historical Perspective

Spreading The Word

Response to My Letter to the Editor

No Attention Means No Representation

Letters to the Editor on 36

George Will on 36

Maine Vote Splitting

Maybe It Won't Be Much of a Fight

More on 36

Welcome to 86-36