Proportional Allocation of Electoral Votes in Colorado?

by Chris Bowers, Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 02:46:12 PM EST

This November, there will likely be an initiative on the ballot in Colorado to distribute its nine electoral votes proportionally according to the percentages of the statewide popular vote:
The dispute involves petitions filed last week by the Make Your Vote Count campaign. It claims to have collected more than 130,000 signatures. If the measure is on the ballot and approved by voters in November, Colorado's nine electoral college votes would be apportioned on a percentage of the popular vote. No other state in the nation divides its electoral vote in that fashion.

With the proposal in place, Colorado, which likely will go into the Bush column, probably would give only five votes for Bush and four for Kerry instead of all nine for Bush, Owens said during an appearance on the Mike Rosen Show on KOA Radio. "I'm going to do everything I can to defeat it, including raising money for a (campaign) to oppose it," Owens vowed. "I already have been in touch nationally with significant groups because I'm not going to stand by and let the Democratic Party under subterfuge change Colorado's electoral college."

Ridder laughed at that reaction and said he personally hoped that California, along with all other states in the country, would adopt the same system.He said Colorado "has a fabulous history for reform. This is simply more fair and reflects the voters' intent more properly. Why would anyone fear that?"

Some Democrats argue that this campaign is a bad idea, because huge, solid Democratic states such as California and New York would instantly become Republican targets of similar campaigns. Certainly, if California were to split its 55 Electoral Votes, say 31-22-2 D-R-G and New York were to split its EV's, say, 19-10-1, it would be a major blow to Democrats in future elections. However, much the same could be said for Texas, Florida, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, and almost every state from the Mississippi to the Rockies on the GOP side. In fact, if every state distributed its electoral votes proportionately, in 2000 the electoral vote count would have been 265-264-9, Gore-Bush-Nader. In all likelihood, in this scenario the Gore campaign would have made a deal with the Nader campaign, exchanging five electors for a few legislative proposals. Gore would have won--no recount, no Supreme Court, no House of Representatives necessary. Granted, these laws would probably be easier to change in Democratic states, simply because there are fewer Democratic states.

I grew up in Upstate New York, a solid Democratic area in an even more solid Democratic state (at least when it comes to Presidential elections). Candidates barely ever campaigned there. Now, I live in Philadelphia, where everyone campaigns constantly. Frankly, that does not seem right to me. It would be nice if the entire country played a serious role in electing a President who will govern an entire nation. Given all of this, I am not sure what to think about this proposal, but it is certainly worth considering. Take the poll.


Poll
Proportional EV's in Colorado?
Let's do it, because it would help Kerry win in 2004
Let's not do it, because while it would help Kerry in 2004, it would open a can of worms that would hurt us later on
Let's do it, because it is more representational than our current system
Let's not do it, because our current system is more representational

Votes: 152
Results : Vote Link : Polls


Tags: General 2008 (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 36 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: propotional representation (none / 0)

I think the Right Thing to do here is what Maine does, and allocate two EVs by the statewide popular vote, and the rest by the the popular vote in each individual CD. That would ensure that the conservatives in central California got their voice, as would liberals in places like Denver and Atlanta. Combined with nonpartisan redistricting, this could theoretically put a lot of energy into local campaigning.

Allocating votes simply by nationwide vote encourages polarization, I think.

by Anonymous Citizen on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 03:03:11 PM EST

Good small d democractic idea (none / 0)

The electoral college is a holdover to a less democratic age.  Rather than attempt amendment of the Constitution to switch to popular vote, this is the practical approach that stays within the existing structure but is far more democratic in nature.

I really don't like the emphasis on 'swing states' as currently practiced.  I want the candidates to battle whereever they have to for a majority.  

This would largely do away with the Red State/Blue State thing, which isn't good for national unity.

I hope it passes in CO and other states for the next election.

"Pay any price, bear any burden"
by JimPortlandOR on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 05:41:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: propotional representation (none / 0)

I've liked this idea for a long time.  The important thing is to make this a national policy, so it does not become concentrated in either red or blue states to the advantage of one party over the other.
Reid DeWolfe Book you should read: "All the Kings Men" by Robert Penn Warren
by Reid on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 05:52:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: propotional representation (none / 0)

Splitting the EC based on CD seems a reasonable idea.  Of course it only works out to be fair is all states do it the same way.

The idea of proportional distribution will cause a lot of problems. With it, recounts will not just be needed when the result is close to 50-50 but also in any ratio that will cause a shift of an Elector. It wouldn't have just been Florida, but many if not most states would have needed recounts.

We might still be counting.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 03:18:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: propotional representation (none / 0)

This article seemed timely. It points out some of the advantages of the EC over using a popular vote.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulgreenberg/pg20040820.shtml

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Aug 20, 2004 at 08:48:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

colorado (none / 0)

Although better than the current system (if applied nationally), eliminating the electoral college altogether makes more sense.   Consider Arizona in the 2000 election--it had 8 EV, and Bush won 51-45.   Would this have broken 4-4 or 5-3?   4-4 is closer....but then any reasonable result would have given a 4-4 split.  So Arizona would be irrelevant.  Same for any small state with an even number of EV.  Small states with an odd number of EV, though, would still be relevant.   This is certainly strange.

It would, of course, focus campaigns in the more heavily populated states.  This is good, since that's where more people are..

One suggestion for implementing this system.  California could pass a bill saying that the new system of apportioning EV goes into effect only when (say) 3/4 of the states or more have done so.   Then the Repugs couldn't just push it through in California or New York...

by Anonymous Citizen on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 03:08:49 PM EST

Re: colorado (none / 0)

You're right, but of course it would take a Constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College. This is something Colorado can do right away.

As you mention, straight P.R. doesn't work well in states with a small, even number of electors (4, 6, or 8). Every election comes out even unless there's a landslide (although AZ was close to 4-3-1 in your example). So if this passes and Colorado loses a seat in 2010, they may want to repeal it.

If you're always playing the fear card, it's a pretty good sign you're not playing with a full deck!
by Mathwiz on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 03:29:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Integer numbers aren't the only solution. (none / 0)

decimal fractional votes could be assigned to reflect more accurately the popular vote:

4.5
or
4.68

"Pay any price, bear any burden"
by JimPortlandOR on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 05:43:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Integer numbers aren't the only solution. (none / 0)

I believe that fractional electoral votes violate the Constitution.
by Anonymous Citizen on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 05:50:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: colorado (none / 0)

Actually, there are lots of possible distributions of votes under "proportional representation."  It all depends on the particular electoral formula (i.e. mathematical votes-to-electors algorithm) used.  As I've shown here, the ballot initiative actually being considered uses an electoral formula which doesn't even approximate proportionality, is kind of complicated and does a surprisingly bad job of helping Democrats.

I've posted a lot on this topic: if you're interested, you can read arguments for supporting the initiative here and here.

by The Bonassus on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 06:41:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: colorado (none / 0)

It could be a similar algorithm to that which assigns the electoral votes via the Census. I don't really know what that is, off the top of my head, but IIRC from what someone told me, it might have something to do with geometric means.
by ark on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 07:18:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: colorado (none / 0)

I meant to say "seats in the House" not "electoral votes," although one is obviously related to the other.
by ark on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 07:21:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Using CDs isnt fair either (none / 0)

Congressional Districts is a good idea in theory...but due to gerrymandering it isnt. For example in 2000 Bush lost the popular vote, but won more congressional districts. And of course he also won more stats so he would have ended up with even more EVs than Gore than he did with the current system.

I think it is an interesting question for the SCOTUS. Right now smaller states have more EV/Person than larger states. Therefore the bigger your state..the less your vote counts. Plus Republicans in California and Democrats in Texas can argue their votes dont count at all.

I think the Colorodo system is fair...but it would have to be implemented nationwide to be truly fair. If we end up with more 'blue states' or more red states using proportional it would be unfair...and also potential grounds for disenfranchisement

by Anonymous Citizen on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 03:10:05 PM EST

Why P.R.? (none / 0)

I've often wondered what would motivate a state to consider allocating its Presidential electors proportionally, and I've come up with two possible reasons:
  1. Politics - if, say, Republicans controlled the government of a solid Blue state, they could help their Presidential candidate by adopting P.R. vs. "winner-take-all." (And vice versa, of course, though Democrats seem much less comfortable with such bare-knuckles politics than Republicans.)

  2. Attention - this, I think, is the prime motivator in Colorado. As a Red state, it doesn't get much attention from either Presidential campaign, as zero electors are up for grabs. If it went with P.R., though, one elector might be up for grabs, and if the election is close (as this one is shaping up to be), it could easily be worth campaigning in a few such states.
I doubt a "swing" state would ever see P.R. in its best interest. Unless there were a mandate, or at least a strong incentive, to pass P.R., a swing state would always have more leverage by putting all its electors up for grabs.

Ironically, I doubt Colorado's particular proposal will help Kerry. Since it's a ballot initiative, it'll probably only pass if Kerry pulls off the upset, in which case it will, of course, help Bush.

If you're always playing the fear card, it's a pretty good sign you're not playing with a full deck!
by Mathwiz on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 03:14:39 PM EST

Don't do it (none / 0)

The problem with your argument, Chris, is that some states can make this change much more easily than others can.  The 3 West Coast states, for example, make it relatively easy to put such a measure before the voters, and the voters there - regardless of which party they support - tend to like things that sound like "reforms", such as open primaries, term limits, etc.  It makes them feel like mavericks when they vote for it.  In other words, these 3 states - which have recently been voting Democratic in presidential elections - are much more likely to enact such a change than would Tennessee, Virginia or Alabama.  

Dems will be happy if we get 4 Colorado EVs we wouldn't have otherwise had in 2004, bit it will haunt us when we surrender 45% of the West Coast EVs in 2008.  

by danielj on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 03:22:47 PM EST

Congress could provide incentives to switch (none / 0)

The current federal support for electoral (voting technology update) could be tied to enactment of P.R.  Other incentives could be provided as well.  

Congress could thereby create some uniformity in federal elections, such as specifying how to apportion E.V.s - hopefully with some decimalization to the 10ths or 100s of a vote.

They could also influence setting up non-partisan reapportionment in the same way, but big-time money would be required as an incentive.

Negative incentives could also be applied: if you don't reform, your federal highway funds are cut by x percentage, for instance.

"Pay any price, bear any burden"
by JimPortlandOR on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 05:49:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On the whole, I'd rather not. (none / 0)

I want to eliminate the electoral college, not reform it.

The Republican criticisms are correct: it takes away power from the state that decides to go that way, that power stemming from pooling votes to a winner-take-all.

Since the GOP is likely to win Colorado, I don't particularly mind if they do it there.

But they are likely to open up this same can of worms in California, and I'd be very much opposed.

On the whole, I'd rather not.

by clawed on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 03:25:25 PM EST

Re: On the whole, I'd rather not. (none / 0)

(Although the cat may already be out of the bag, and the GOP will probably attempt this in every Democratic state in the near future.)
by clawed on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 03:27:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the whole, I'd rather not. (none / 0)

The Republican criticisms are correct: it takes away power from the state that decides to go that way, that power stemming from pooling votes to a winner-take-all.

True, if the state is in play to begin with.

But in a state like, say, Oklahoma, which hasn't gone Democratic since 1964, P.R. would give the state more power.

OK currently has 7 electoral votes, but is so heavily GOP in Presidential elections the real question would be whether they divide 5-2 or only 4-3.

Admittedly, one EV isn't much to offer, but it's more than the state offers today: zero EVs.

OK has a Democratic legislature and governor today, but I doubt Gov. Henry has the cojones to call a special session to consider this - especially since he doesn't have someone like Tom DeLay to answer to.

If you're always playing the fear card, it's a pretty good sign you're not playing with a full deck!
by Mathwiz on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 03:40:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Eliminating the electoral college is a bad idea. (none / 0)

Here's why I support the electoral college (although I prefer the proportional representation that Maine and Nebraska have to the winner-take-all approach):  

The presidential election is our only nationwide election.  The 2000 election saw a turnout of over 105 million voters, and the popular vote margin was only 0.5% of that total.  

The electoral college effectively splits this sole nationwide election into 51 state elections (plus DC), and serves to "contain" ambiguities in the results.

Case in point:  The 2000 election.  Because of the electoral college, the allegations -- hanging chads, disenfranchised voters, butterfly ballots, Katherine Harris, voter purges -- called Florida's results into dispute, but that's all.  

Had a statewide recount proceeded, that would have entailed recounting under six million ballots, a far cry from the daunting and extraordinary undertaking of recounting 105 million ballots.

Another advantage that the electoral college offers is that it often 'moots' reasons for disputes.  Suppose Kerry wins in 2004 by an electoral margin of 300-258, but some irregularity throws Vermont's ballots into question.  

The electoral college allows that irregularity to be handled quietly, without a media firestorm, because the outcome of the election would not be in doubt regardless of how the Vermont dispute is resolved.  This "mooting" ability is not perfect -- 2000 will stand out in memory because of the closeness of the electoral vote and the size of the disputed state.  But it works more often than not -- in most elections, the electoral college magnifies the margin of the popular vote rather than contradicts it.  

by Anonymous Citizen on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 07:27:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Proportional allocation is not the answer. (none / 0)

It could still lead to a popular vote winner becoming an electoral vote winner, and it would still allow small states a disproportionte influence in the result.

The Amar Plan is a better solution.  It would simply award a state's electors to the winner of the popular vote.  If enough states did this, it would ensure that the popular vote winner was also the winner of the electoral college.  Further, it would effectively give voice to voters in other states; they might not be able to swing their state, but their vote, in addition to those elsewhere, would be able to swing the Amar states - and the nation - to victory.

However, much the same could be said for Texas, Florida, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, and almost every state from the Mississippi to the Rockies on the GOP side.

That presumes that those states would adopt this plan.  Texas, Florida, and Ohio certainly wouldn't; they lean Republican, and their Republican legislators wouldn't give up those more-likely-than-not Bush votes.  Georgia, North Carolina, and Mississippi might be better targets, being controlled by Democratic legislators, but it's simply too much of a risk.

More likely than not, this plan will be adopted by well-intentioned blue states, not red ones, and by splitting their votes, they'll ensure that Republican presidents are elected for the forseeable future, no matter what the popular vote is.

by Drew on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 03:38:14 PM EST

It could still lead to a popular vote winner (none / 0)

becoming an electoral vote loser, I mean.
by Drew on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 03:39:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Amar Plan (none / 0)

Interesting. I hadn't heard about that before. Thanks.

My only concerns would be that:

  1. It might be found unconstitutional, since it would let the other 49 states influence the electors of any state that adopts it (opponents would certainly claim an equal protection violation, and it could even be a VRA violation if the state that adopts it is disproportionately nonwhite). Of course, a state could still try - the worst that could happen is that the courts would shoot it down.

  2. It would run into trouble if any other state adopts an alternative voting scheme, such as instant runoff voting. I'm not totally sold on IRV (see my post at DailyKos for my preferred alternative), but I think we need some way to eliminate the spoiler problem, because we aren't going to stop future Naders by merely getting pissed off at them.

If you're always playing the fear card, it's a pretty good sign you're not playing with a full deck!
by Mathwiz on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 05:57:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Amar Plan (none / 0)

I'm no expert, but I suspect the Amar Plan is constitutional.  Bush v. Gore helpfully noted that a state's voters have no right to vote for president, after all.  If they have no right to choose who wins their electors, why not allow other states' voters influence how they award their delegates?  

As far as the Voting Rights Act goes - I'd love to see South Carolina Republicans argue that the rights of black voters are abridged if the state's votes don't go to a Republican presidential candidate.  It'd be even more fun than seeing Georgia Republicans argue that the recent Democratic remap disenfranchised black voters.

I share your preference for approval/acceptability voting, BTW.  But wouldn't the approval votes for the candidate simply count toward its national total?

by Drew on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 06:52:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Amar Plan (none / 0)

I don't care if it is Constitutional. It is silly.

 If a small state, like Wyoming, adopted it, they might as well not bother voting. Even a landslide there would not shift the balance in the VAST majority of elections. Their Electors would be chosen by the folks in NY and CA.

If you really want folks to feel that their vote doesn't matter, this is the system for you!

And it doesn't address the issue of one candidate not getting the majority of the vote. Pretty common when there is an Independent in the race.

Take a look at:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulgreenberg/pg20040820.shtml

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Aug 20, 2004 at 08:58:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Proportional Allocation of Electoral Votes (none / 0)

Maine and Neb. allocate their Electoral votes in a similiar fashion. They give 2 votes to the overall winner and then divide the rest by winner of congressional districts.
by Rational on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 03:52:29 PM EST

Proportional Allocation of EVs in Colorado? (none / 0)

As a Colorado voter, I agree with Mathwiz's analysis.  The only people here who would support it (since CO has been Repub for years now) are Kerry supporters.  Thus, by passing it, we take EV's away from Kerry this year, potentially losing the election for him.  If Kerry didn't win the popular vote, the measure wouldn't pass anyway.

Too bad we can't get Soros, Ted Turner and others to fund a massive movement to support amending the Constitution.

by Anonymous Citizen on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 04:06:10 PM EST

Re: Proportional Allocation of Electoral Votes in (none / 0)

If the CO initiative fails, what's to stop Rethugs from sponsoring EV allocation initiatives in CA, OR and WA anyway?
by Anonymous Citizen on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 04:36:30 PM EST

Re: Proportional Allocation of Electoral Votes in (none / 0)

my choice would actually be, let's do it, if it's done across the board.  If Dem states all have it and Repug states don't, would be a travesty.
by Anonymous Citizen on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 05:29:56 PM EST

Re: Proportional Allocation of Electoral Votes in (none / 0)

Even if PR became national, think of the power it would give to third parties.  By Chris' own analysis, in 2000, Ralph Nader could have chosen the President.   If you like third parties having power far in excess of their support in the population, you'd love Israel's government...
by Anonymous Citizen on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 05:47:26 PM EST

Third Parties (none / 0)

Better Nader than Scalia!

And, as it is, third-party voters are ignored. Their votes count for less than their share of the population. This so-called reform sounds good but it does not address the two free votes each state gets for being a state (even if it has fewer people than the district).

One idea would count senators towards the representative allocations but this would affect the middle tier while still giving the smallest states three automatic EVs. Or a future congress could revoke statehood (they once did this to Utah, didn't they? they also did this to most of the southern states during the civil war, allowing reconstruction governments to seek re-admission) once a state failed to meet the qualifications of the Northwest Act. Congress has the authority to reorganize territories and then re-admit the consolidated states.

by Anonymous Citizen on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 06:04:01 PM EST

As a contrarian (none / 0)

... or at least as I tend to be one, I sometimes think we should do this another way.

Don't get rid of the electoral college.  Instead, raise its visibility.  Have a slate of electoral college candidates who have had the opportunity to campaign within the state.  List the person for whom they'd vote as EC representative on the ballot.  Then everyone votes for one, and the top n - to the number needed to fill the state's electoral votes, plus designated alternates in the event of absence on the day of election - get the positions.

Madness.  Mayhem.  Glory for "minor" parties who, having only one EC candidate, garner an EC vote from having concentrated the votes from their membership.  Frustration among major parties with perhaps hundreds of people vying to be EC reps, but only a half dozen garnering the vast majority of the party faithful's votes.

by Anonymous Citizen on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 06:56:33 PM EST

eeeek! Yucky can of worms. (none / 0)


Who could love the current Electoral College? Not me (I'm not from Wyoming or S.D. or N.D., etc.).

On the other hand, introducing some form of proportional allocation of votes for a winner-take-all office would be worse.

If you want to go down the proportional allocation road, the most reasonable course is to go straight to election by plurality of popular vote.

And then you pray that no election is ever close enough to require a recount.

by Ottnott on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 07:04:32 PM EST

Defining Subterfuge (none / 0)

"...I'm not going to stand by and let the Democratic Party under subterfuge change Colorado's electoral college."

Changing it to reflect the actual vote is subterfuge?  Nah.  It's fair and equitable representation.

Subterfuge is what Delay and his republican cohorts did in re-districting Texas for ONE purpose in mind:  to keep the first, in a long time, Texas Republican State Congress in power.  Now THAT'S subterfuge.

by Anonymous Citizen on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 08:59:04 PM EST

PR vs winner-take-all (none / 0)

I think that the entire premise is skewed. PR is fine, if adopted across the entire country. But, it won't be. So, what you'll have, as someone said above, is the well-meaning blue states giving a bunch of EVs to the gop and a bunch of power-hungry blue states taking all of the gop votes. Only if the gop gives up their EVs would I agree to PR in the other states. In this one case, Colorado, I think that Kerry can take it, so I'd say no to the PR in Colorado.
Rant Du Jour
by myjlf on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 11:01:28 PM EST

Let's Not . . . (none / 0)

As a Colorado Voter, I think I will vote against this.

Not that I disagree with the intent (I signed the petition) but it's too much of a can of worms. We need to forge a solid progressive majority, before we turn to this kind of reform.

ck

by Anonymous Citizen on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 12:46:07 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: