« Four New Swing States | Main | Open Thread - and Blogads Are Here (Almost) »
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Colorado EV-Splitting Initiative is on the Ballot
Posted by DavidNYCVia Kos, it looks like the Colorado initiative to split its electoral votes proportionately has succeeded in getting on the ballot for this fall. If the measure passes, it would apply starting this election. As we've discussed here before, this move - while a short-term boon for Kerry - would likely be bad for the Dems long-term. That's because it would start an arms race where Republicans lean or safe Dem states would try the same thing. I could easily imagine a similar initiative getting on the ballot - and winning - in California.
And as the article indicates, it may not even be so great short-term. There would almost certainly be legal battles over the initiative if it proves decisive in the election. The most obvious avenue of attack is pretty simple: The U.S. Constitution provides that state legislatures choose the method that electoral college members will be appointed. Though my understanding is that the CO constitution defines the legislature's will pretty broadly - ie, the legislature created the ballot initiative system, hence it can choose to delegate its authority - I could easily imagine a big fight over this.
Colorado has nine EVs this year. This measure would pretty much automatically give us four of those votes. While the possibility of the initiative passing will surely make Bush sweat in search of four new EVs, we don't want to win this way. Obviously, we want to win as big as we can. But if it's going to be close - and I still think it will be - we want Kerry's election to be as "legit" as possible. Yes, Bush won a stolen election that was about as illegitimate as it gets. But we all know that, thanks to the GOP and their media abettors, there's a huge double-standard that overlooks this kind of thing when it decisively benefits the Republicans but excoriates the Democrats if it even appears to benefit us in the slightest.
P.S. Gotta love the name of the GOP-backed group opposing this measure: Coloradans Against a Really Stupid Idea. They happen to be right, but they have no idea why.
Posted at 06:25 PM in Colorado | Technorati
Comments
I desperately hope this doesn't pass. Last ime, if EV's were distributed apportionately in MN, Gore and Bush would each have gotten 5. The Dems would lose even if they won under MOST scenarios where every state distributed their EV's apportionately.
Posted by: Mark at August 17, 2004 07:24 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Has that ever been on the ballot in Minnesota. I've never heard of it before.
Posted by: David Trinh at August 17, 2004 08:15 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Your thoughts are absolutely correct, David. I fear that this is something that could easily spread to California, and that would definitely not be a good thing for the Democrats in the long run. In the short term, Colorado splitting their EVs would call into question the legitimacy of the election should it somehow make the difference in a Kerry win. I am in total agreement with you on this. This is something we should all oppose, as it will do nothing to help the Democrats in the long term, and possibly not even in the short term. This could be a Pandora's Box, and I believe it's one best left closed.
Posted by: Pepe at August 17, 2004 08:38 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think one has to balance the negative aspect of this measure (the harm to the Democrats) against it being a step in the right direction in getting rid of the Electoral College - or, rather, in helping to nullify its anti-democratic effects.
I remain unconvinced that this is a bad idea, or that it will spread like wildfire (look at Maine and Nebraska as the counter-example).
In terms of this election, I think it can only help Kerry and not hurt him, and the next election is the next election. If we're not in better shape by then that we can weather a few roadblocks, then we're screwed in any case.
Let's not throw *everything* out the window in our (well-deserved) concern about winning this one and getting rid of Bush.
(And, you know, the voter of Colorado could well vote the measure down. No need for panic, I think.)
Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) at August 18, 2004 12:35 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Ed, It's just that Colorado could taint the election should they split their EVs literally at the last minute. I don't want to see this in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and California. No stystem's perfect, but it never is a good thing to even attempt to change the rules (in this, Colorado) at the last minute. In the end, I think if more states adopted this (like in Maine and Nebraska) it might be more beneficial to the Republicans in the long run. If California acted similarly, Bush could possibly expect to receive up to 20 EVs-- equal those of the entire state of Ohio!
Posted by: Pepe at August 18, 2004 07:59 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
No question. It would be more beneficial to the GOP long-term. There's a reason why the GOP most likely controls the U.S. House for a generation now. Democrats are heavily concentrated in urban districts while Republicans have lesser majorities nearly everywhere else. Had every state allocated their EV's apportionately in 2000, Florida wouldn't have even mattered. Gore still wouldn't have won. The way district boundaries are currently drawn in Michigan and Pennsylvania, it's conceivable the Democratic candidate could win the state but receive fewer EV's than the Republican under this scenario. Scary stuff. I hope Colorado Democrats reject the urge for instant electoral gratification.
As for Minnesota, apportional EV distribution was never voted on, but a bill was brought up by a Republican legislator seeking to steal five of the state's 10 EV's in most elections. That happened in 2000, when we still had Independence Party Guv Jesse Ventura and a Senate DFL Majority. Now we have Republican-domination except for a three-seat Dem majority in the Senate. If the bill were to come up again now, it'd have a chance.
Posted by: Mark at August 18, 2004 08:35 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
You're probably aware of this but a new poll shows Bush & Kerry both at 47% in Colorado -- see http://www.surveyusa.com/currentelectionpolls.html. I've long thought Kerry should win CO, due to their stumbling economy and the in-migration from more "liberal" places.
Posted by: Jason at August 18, 2004 10:24 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
This is going to be a likely tactic in the 2008 elections - campaign to have states your opponents are leading in switch to proportional assignment of electors.
The problem for Democrats is that proportional assignment of electors is right and should be done until we abolish the Electoral College entirely.
I haven't seen any in-depth analysis of how much this skews the electoral system towards the GOP any more than the present system. In the present system less populated states skew Republican and they are overrepresented and they get all the electors and these are a higher share of the electoral college than those states share of population.
Gary
Posted by: Gary Denton at August 18, 2004 10:47 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Anyone sey the SUSA poll on the Colorado Senate Race? Last poll I saw had Salazar up 10, now he is one behind Coors. That can't be good.
Posted by: Michael at August 18, 2004 11:08 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
It is long past the time to abolish the Electoral College. It was an idea that had its roots in an era when women could not vote, when blacks could not vote and when white land owners ruled the country. The popular vote should rule. As president, god willing, Kerry should move to abolish this scab on our democracy.
Posted by: Steven M at August 18, 2004 02:24 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I did a search all over the net and happened upon this article. Check this link out, folks, to see how Colorado could indeed be the start of chaos:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/475xrhca.asp?pg=2
Posted by: Pepe at August 18, 2004 02:38 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
There really needs to be some uniformity in the way state's allocate their electoral college votes. It's bad enough Nebraska and Maine split theirs while the rest don't.
Imagine Bush losing the popular vote (again) but winning Maine's 2nd congressional district to produce a 269-all college tie. He'd then be appointed president by the House. All because Maine does it differently. It's not all that far fetched.
I actually like this idea Colorado idea of splitting their college votes proportional to the total state vote. Much more democratic. But only if ALL states do it as well.
On the other hand, I wouldn't like to see other states adopt the ME/NE method. Not with the amount of gerrymandered electorates.
Of course the best solution would be to ditch the electoral college altogether. But is that ever going to happen?
Posted by: anon at August 18, 2004 02:54 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm worried about the "legitimacy factor", but I have a feeling the GOP will find many other reasons to call this election illegitimate if they lose it.
However, I'm in complete agreement with Ed re: this being a good thing for democracy. We might lose votes in California, but we'd gain them in Texas. Looking at voting trends by state, I find it hard to believe that this would tip the scales toward either party.
Posted by: charlie white at August 18, 2004 03:02 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Of course the best solution would be to ditch the electoral college altogether. But is that ever going to happen?
Fat chance, and there's nothing any president can do about it. It will take 35 states to ratify such an amendment to the Constitution abolishing of the Electoral College. Don't hold your breath for that to happen any time soon!
Posted by: Pepe at August 18, 2004 03:09 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
At present, here's how the two parties would fare in the 3 most electoral-rich states, taking the same voting percentages as in the 2000 election and using both the winner-take-all and proportional systems:
CA: Gore 29, Bush 26 (55 total EVs)
TX: Bush 20, Gore 14 (34 total EVs)
NY: Gore 20, Bush 11 (31 EVs)
Under this system, the top three states from 2000 look have given Bush a huge boost:
Gore 63, Bush 57
With the winner take all in these 3 most populous states, it wasn't even close:
Gore 86, Bush 34
See why more states following Colorado (should they split their EVs) could be a potential Pandora's Box? Let's hope Colorado Democrats don't shoot themselves--and the rest of us--in the foot!
Posted by: Pepe at August 18, 2004 03:23 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Upon first reading, I thought the proposed Colorado model would allocate electoral votes as they do in Nebraska and Maine. That would be a massive disaster for the Dems if it caught on. If the Colorado model actually allocates the votes proportional to popular vote in the state and not Congressional district winners, it would be less disastrous if it caught on nationally, but would eliminate the purpose of the Electoral College and likely run into resistance from perennial "battleground states" that can swing elections under the winner-take-all system.
To put it simply, Ohio and Florida would lose their "battleground state" power and would no longer be able to rake in the financial benefits of campaign ad barrages, frequent candidate visits, and localized politician pandering that accompanies being "swing". Why would Kerry and Bush spend any more time in Florida than they would in Maryland or Indiana if EV's were distributed apportionate to popular vote outcome? Thus, I don't expect such a system will ever replace the current.
With that said, I'm a huge critic of the current Electoral College for a variety of reasons. Given the regionalized polarization of the country, I could see the popular vote results conflicting with the electoral vote outcome being a regular occurrence in the years to come. I suspected it could happen in 2000....but in favor of Gore, not Bush. Furthermore, the inflation of votes cast in Delaware, Wyoming and North Dakota is becoming unacceptable. All of these states get two free electoral votes based on their one House seat. If California had such a setup, they'd have 159 electoral votes. Texas would have 96 EV's and New York would have 77. The chasm is only growing larger, but as stated, there's no way two-thirds of the U.S. states would conceed to its demise...so it looks like we're stuck with it.
Posted by: Mark at August 18, 2004 03:48 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Upon first reading, I thought the proposed Colorado model would allocate electoral votes as they do in Nebraska and Maine. That would be a massive disaster for the Dems if it caught on. If the Colorado model actually allocates the votes proportional to popular vote in the state and not Congressional district winners, it would be less disastrous if it caught on nationally, but would eliminate the purpose of the Electoral College and likely run into resistance from perennial "battleground states" that can swing elections under the winner-take-all system.
To put it simply, Ohio and Florida would lose their "battleground state" power and would no longer be able to rake in the financial benefits of campaign ad barrages, frequent candidate visits, and localized politician pandering that accompanies being "swing". Why would Kerry and Bush spend any more time in Florida than they would in Maryland or Indiana if EV's were distributed apportionate to popular vote outcome? Thus, I don't expect such a system will ever replace the current.
With that said, I'm a huge critic of the current Electoral College for a variety of reasons. Given the regionalized polarization of the country, I could see the popular vote results conflicting with the electoral vote outcome being a regular occurrence in the years to come. I suspected it could happen in 2000....but in favor of Gore, not Bush. Furthermore, the inflation of votes cast in Delaware, Wyoming and North Dakota is becoming unacceptable. All of these states get two free electoral votes based on their one House seat. If California had such a setup, they'd have 159 electoral votes. Texas would have 96 EV's and New York would have 77. The chasm is only growing larger, but as stated, there's no way two-thirds of the U.S. states would conceed to its demise...so it looks like we're stuck with it.
Posted by: Mark at August 18, 2004 03:48 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe appears to be incorrect. If all states used the Maine/Nebraska system of assigning electoral votes, the totals in the 2000 election would have been just about the same. See this analysis.
Regarding the power of small states, this is true in a simple EV/individual vote calculation. However, the point is not quite true because big states have more influence on the outcome.
An additional complicating factor in the current system is the fact that some states are more closely divided than others - a fact known to readers of this site. For more information see the following link:
http://lavoisier1794.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/17/203255/439
Posted by: Sam Wang at August 18, 2004 04:08 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think everyone is making too big a deal of the electoral college thing. Fact is that the probability of one candidate winning the electoral vote while the other wins the popular vote is extremely low. It happened in 2000 and in 1888 [the odds were different then because there were fewer states]. In order for this to happen, the popular vote would have to be extremely close (
A better battle to pick would be on absentee ballots!
Posted by: Jason at August 18, 2004 04:50 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Jason, I disagree. If Kerry wins Ohio and Florida by a fraction of a percent each, he is almost assuredly the next President, even if Bush wins every Southern state by a wider margin than he did in 2000. I could easily see a situation in this geographically-polarized electorate where a popular vote wins pulls off a decisive victory, even a majority, yet still loses because he narrowly lost a couple key swing states. In 1976, only 11,000 votes in Ohio would have swung the Electoral College to Ford.
Posted by: Mark at August 18, 2004 04:56 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Jason, I disagree. If Kerry wins Ohio and Florida by a fraction of a percent each, he is almost assuredly the next President, even if Bush wins every Southern state by a wider margin than he did in 2000. I could easily see a situation in this geographically-polarized electorate where a popular vote wins pulls off a decisive victory, even a majority, yet still loses because he narrowly lost a couple key swing states. In 1976, only 11,000 votes in Ohio would have swung the Electoral College to Ford.
Posted by: Mark at August 18, 2004 04:56 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
It is possible, but highly unlikely that Kerry would win Ohio and Florida and NOT win the popular vote. It's true that there are many cases where the winner of the popular vote ALMOST lost the election, but keep in mind that there are an awful lot of people who ALMOST won the lottery. Anyway, I would find it curiously satisfying if Kerry won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote. The more important point is that these rare occasions (electoral/popular split) can only occur when the election is so close that it's virtually a tie. And in such cases, there are MANY things that can swing an election away from the "true" winner, such as heavy rain in SOUTHERN Ohio.
Posted by: Jason at August 18, 2004 07:50 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I kind of don't like how a lot of people here have looked at the matter of splitting a state's electoral college votes through the glass of "does it benefit the Democratic Party?" A state should do what's best for its citizens, and, without thinking too deeply about it, I imagine that for a lot of states where there is little doubt about who will win the majority, they'd probably garner a lot more attention if their ECVs were split. With an un-split vote, a candidate needs to abandon those states where he has little hope of winning and neglect as much as he can get away with those states where he has little risk of losing; with a split vote, there would almost always be marginal gain for campaigning in a state and promising them goodies.
That said, I think it is unlikely the Republicans would try to upset the apple cart of the Electoral College very much, as by pushing split ECVs. Basically, the EC is a very screwed up system that systematically favors Republicans A LOT due to all the western states with miniscule populations getting the same two ECVs for their two Senators as every other state. Some of you may recall that before the 2000 election there was -- bizarrely -- a lot of discussion about the possibility that GORE (!) would win the ECV but lose the popular vote. I rather wonder if this wasn't some sort of Republican plot to sell the advantages of accepting the ECV result over the popular vote result, which was much more likely to happen (and in fact did happen) in their candidate's favor.
Posted by: Marsden at August 19, 2004 12:12 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
That said, I think it is unlikely the Republicans would try to upset the apple cart of the Electoral College very much, as by pushing split ECVs. Basically, the EC is a very screwed up system that systematically favors Republicans A LOT due to all the western states with miniscule populations getting the same two ECVs for their two Senators as every other state.
This is exactly right. If states were simply assigned their congressional district value, without the +2 add-on, then Gore would have won the electoral college last time.
Some of you may recall that before the 2000 election there was -- bizarrely -- a lot of discussion about the possibility that GORE (!) would win the ECV but lose the popular vote.
I struggle to get my head around this one too. Unless Nader was expected to peel off huge scores of votes in the safe Dem states.
Simply, with the amount of small GOP-leaning states that there are, the electoral college is biased in favour of the Republicans.
Kerry isn't going to win the electoral college without without winning the popular vote. (Though I'd love to see it happen.)
Posted by: anon at August 19, 2004 06:49 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The concept that Gore could have won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote was anything but far-fetched. Polls the weekend before the election showed Gore trailing Bush in the aggregate polls (but within the margin of error), yet gave him poll leads in CA, CT, DE, DC, FL, HA, IL, IA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NY, OR, PA, VT and WA. Had Gore won all these states where he led in the polls, he would have had 276 electoral votes and we'd be discussing Gore's re-election campaign right now.
I always reject the notions that electoral trends are some exact science as a number of people seem to believe. Saying that John Kerry couldn't possibly win the Electoral Vote but lose the popular vote is based on nothing but gut instinct, although the prospect of narrow Kerry wins in OH and FL pushing him over the top in the EC while Bush's supersized margins in the South and West keeping him atop the popular vote is a very real possibility. Every election produces a whole new set of scenarios. I tune out pundits and pollsters informing me that "no Republican has ever become President without winning Ohio" and that "only one President has ever won with approval ratings less than 50%." That's interesting trivia, but many use it as one-size-fits-all blueprint for electoral success in fast-changing political times. It would actually surprise me if at least one of these "carved in stone" election-related laws wasn't toppled this year. It seems one does every year.
Posted by: Mark at August 19, 2004 08:40 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
As long as we're on the subject of scary political news:
A new Rasmussen poll shows New Mexico TIED!!!
A Strategic Vision poll shows Wisconsin TIED!!!
Before I start getting worried, should I know something about these pollsters? Do they have a specific bent? Do they use questionable methodology? I thought we had a slim lead in New Mexico and at least a squeaker in Wisconsin.
On a more positive note, is Gallup considered the Big Kahuna of polling? Gallup shows us ahead in Ohio...which is always nice to hear. Plus, I haven't seen anyone contradict our lead in Florida for a while. If we get Florida and Ohio, we're guaranteed the White House! Even if Jeb poisons Florida for us (which I doubt he'd get away with these days), winning all the Gore states + Ohio would give us 280 electoral votes, for a slim (but sure) win!
Nathaniel
Posted by: Nathaniel at August 19, 2004 12:23 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Quite apart from which party it would help, I think allocating all but two electoral votes per state by congressional district would be a terrible idea, for the following reasons:
1. It would increase the already substantial incentives to gerrymander congressional districts, whereas state boundaries can't be gerrymandered.
2. Since most congressional districts are far more predicatably partisan than most states (which is why there are more moderates in the Senate than in the House), it would further the polarization of the electorate.
3. Since there are far more electoral votes up for grabs in "swing states" than there would be in "swing congressional districts," it would further the tendency of both campaigns to focus on the narrow portion of the electorate whose electoral votes they actually had a chance to win. Instead of having the campaign focused on the 20 or so states that both parties might have some chance to win, it would focus even more heavily on the 20-30 (at most) congressional districts that might legitimately be "up for grabs."
Posted by: gary at August 19, 2004 01:27 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I certainly hope Amendment 36 passes. The winner-takes-all system is unfair and undemocratic, and too easily leads to situations where someone can become President with just a minority of the vote. The electoral system in the US is antiquated and does not reflect the popular choice, which is a huge flaw for a democracy. It would definitely be better for Amendment 36 to be on the Federal ballot, rather than just Colorado, but someone somewhere needs to start doing the right thing and lead by example in order to start the process of change.
Posted by: JP at October 18, 2004 07:33 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The last I saw, the amendment was losing badly in the polls, so it looks like whoever wins CO will win all of its votes. I'm glad, because I don't want the Supreme Court involved yet again in determining the outcome of an election.
Posted by: pepe at October 18, 2004 07:52 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment