I put this here instead of local events because I think it could have an impact on the rest of the states. Colorado is currently considering an amendment that would split it's electoral votes. That is, the electoral votes would go along the lines of the popular vote (assuming you get at least 10% of the popular vote). It's an interesting concept, and something I am not totally opposed to. However, I am rather suspicious of the time. This amendment is coming up soon, and people are trying to get it passed soon so it will go into effect before the November elections. I find this all of a sudden rush to be the suspicious thing. Colorado has been, historically, a Republican state (lots of cowboys). Bush is probably going to win Colorado, but not with 100% of the popular vote. It seems a way to take away some of the electoral votes from Bush.

I can think of other reasons why passing this amendment is rather stupid. But in principle, it's not a bad idea. Though I do think that for something like this to be effective, than all the states have to do it. And the smaller states may not want to split up their electoral votes.

__________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

it's fine. But the timing is more than suspicious, it's a purely partisan move without a doubt. But in theory it's ok and if that's what the state wants they should go that way.

It won't pass, and it is a bad idea to begin with.

I thought that the rules for the Electoral College were set up at a Federal level, ie., Colo cannot do this. Could someone educate me, please?

(been meaning to post this question for a while...)

And yes, this is a Federal issue, not a state/local. IMO. Please don't move, until the 72 hours. Then move to Current Events. I'm axeing ya.

This is an article I found, more an opinion piece, but it speaks of the amendment being proposed here.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/7280

And this is the MSNBC piece that talks about it

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5781897/site/newsweek/

The way the electoral college votes is a state issue, but has long been held to be the winner take all rule. I like the issue because it gives people's votes more importance. It would also make it easier for third party candidates to maybe get an electoral vote or two. And anything that promotes the third parties I am in favor for. However, on the reverse side this does seem to be a rather partisan movement aimed at getting Bush less electoral votes. Also it has the added disadvantage of making the state less "popular" with the major candidates. If they are searching for swing states to win, they would want to take the states that would yield higher electoral payoffs. If they are only going to be getting a percentage, I think there would be less incentive to focus on that state. Though it could mean the underdog may focus more onto the state to try to get a few more electoral votes out. Also I think that if this were to be done, it makes sense to do it on the national level, rather than the state level. But considering that electoral votes are more of a state matter, I am not sure as to how that would be done.

__________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Typical Democrat ploy. It's not the first time they've tried to change the rules during an election. And when you're this far into the election cycle, it's during the election. Problem is it's pretty short-sighted. It's one of those things they want to change now because they think it will benefit their candidate.....but haven't thought through how it may very well come back to bite them in the arse someday.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

I don't know which ones they are, but I believe that a small number of states already apportion their Electoral votes. The manner of of running each state's election and Electoral College delegates is strictly up to each state.
One weird thing is that the Electors chosen to cast the Presidential votes are NOT LOCKED INTO ANY CANDIDATE! They can each vote for whom they wish! In fact, in 2000, one of the Electors from Washington DC actually Abstained! So D.C. only cast 2 of their 3 votes in the E.C.!

Here is a little background on why there is an Electoral College.

"The Framers of the Constitution wanted to make sure the people were given direct input in choosing their leaders and saw two ways to accomplish this:

1. The people of the entire nation would vote for and elect the president and vice president based on popular votes alone. A direct popular election.

2. The people of each state would elect their members of the US Congress by direct popular election. The members of Congress would then express the wishes of the people by electing the president and vice president themselves. An election by Congress.

The Founding Fathers feared the direct popular election option.


There were no organized national political parties yet, no structure by which to choose and limit the number of candidates. In addition, travel and communication was slow and difficult at that time. A very good candidate could be popular regionally, but remain unknown to the rest of the country. A large number of regionally popular candidates would thus divide the vote and not indicate the wishes of the nation as a whole.
On the other hand, election by Congress would require the members to both accurately assess the desires of the people of their states and to actually vote accordingly. This could have led to elections that better reflected the opinions and political agendas of the members of Congress than the actual will of the people.

As a compromise, we have the Electoral College system."

From http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepol...tcollege_3.htm

Here is the actual amendment that is coming up.

http://www.leg.state.co.us/2003a/initrefr.nsf/0/69836dccc258499287256e9200650532/$FILE/Amendment%2036%20-%20Presidential%20Electors.pdf

The more I read about it, it seems the more this amendment would land Presidential elections in the hands of the courts and Congress.

__________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

In my opinion, the states SHOULD split their electoral votes alone the popular vote. It simply makes more sense that way, and gives -- say -- Republicans in Massachusetts a reason for even going out to the poles in Novemeber.

You said:

I'm not sure that's true. Maine, one of the smallest states in the Union (in terms of population) is one of the few that actually do split their vote.

I believe this electoral reform should be nation-wide.

But the effects of this must be realized. Splitting the electoral votes will cause more elections to go to the courts and congress. Effectivly removing the people from the process entirely. Remember, a candidate must have 270 electoral votes to win without it going to Congress. And recounts, my god let's not get into that. If a state goes (for example) 60% Bush, 40% Kerry there is no need for recounting, Bush won the state. But if electoral votes are counted as a percentage of the popular vote, then we would see an increase in court cases with recounts and electoral vote splitting, etc.

__________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH