I really LIKE Amendment 36

[F.Gordon]

I already have a pretty full plate, but I'm willing to make a financial donation. But can't find a promo-site to do this. Can someone post it? I'd also urge non-Colorado DUers to help out.

I listened to a repuke on the radio last night railing against it...and he sold me on being FOR it.

Amendment 36 is good on so many different levels. IMO

1. It would increase voter turnout.

2. It would finally give third parties a means to wage a legitimate campaign.

3. Take away the "winner take all" and you reduce the obscene amounts of money that candidates pour into the states. It helps negate the idea that the candidate with the most money wins.

4. It's democratic. It gives ALL people a voice in determining the election.

BTW: As I understand it, if Amendment 36 passes it will immediately apply to the 2004 election.

[Bill McBlueState]

1. this is proportional allocation of EVs?

This is an *excellent* idea. It essentially makes the electoral college obsolete without having to amend the federal constitution. Have you seen any early indications of how much support it has?

And I'm really surprised that it would apply to 2004.

[F.Gordon]

2. Yes. No idea about support (and I found the Donate link)

But, it certainly "looks" like it has strong support.....

A random sample of the 134,821 signatures that were submitted indicated it carried the names of 94,320 qualified electors, well above the 67,829 needed to make the ballot.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/election/article/0,1299,DRMN_36_3110462,00.html

And DONATE here.....

http://www.allvotesmatter.com/

I don't know for a fact that it would apply to the 2004 elections. I heard this "3rd hand". Hopefully there is someone around here that can clear this part up for me/you.

[JLucas4092]

15. Late to the discussion.....

But you are correct. It would apply this year. For this reason, I thought it would be an early election, but it's on November 2nd.

[newyawker99]

16. Hi JLucas4092!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[F.Gordon]

3. 5. It would force candidates to discuss issues....

Instead of just zipping in the State, grabbing some cash, then zooming off to the next State.

Maybe even, gaud forbid, it would force the Candidates to hold debates at the State level. Listen to the questions/concerns of voters at the local level.

[paulk]

7. it would do exactly the opposite

Candidates wouldn't bother to come to Colorado at all.

Why waste the time and money coming to a state that's going to split a certain way whether you campaign there or not? Colorado was a lock for the Republicans in 2000. Did Gore or Bush come here that election cycle? No. The only reason we're seeing campaigning here this time around is because Colorado is in play.

Candidates will come here if they see the possibility of getting all nine CO electoral votes for themselves. If the differential is only going to be one vote (a 5-4 split) or at best three (a 6-3 split), candidates will spend their resources in a state that offers a better return.


You have expressed several reasons in this thread why you support this amendment - but you haven't supported any of these assertions with an argument as to why you think they will happen. For instance - why would this amendment help third party candidates, as you state. I don't see any change myself - Neither Perot, Anderson, or Nader got enough votes in any one district to garner a single electoral vote - I don't see how this amendment would change that equation.

You could make an argument that the amendment would get more people to vote, perhaps. I could see this being true in competitive districts like CO7 - but you can make the exact opposite argument for Colorado Springs (why vote if you're a Dem) or Denver (why vote if you're a Repub.) It's a wash, overall, and once again I don't see this amendment changing anything.

You say that a Repuke (who was against it) on the radio convinced you
to vote for the amendment. I can understand why Republicans oppose this, since they are favored to win this state and stand to gain all nine of our electoral votes. I'm more concerned with the long term implications and any precedent set. I don't see this as a partisan issue.

Ask yourself - if you were in California and this initiative was on
the ballot - how would you feel about it? The Democrats have a lock on ALL California's electoral votes - the most in the nation. Would you be willing to split that with the Republicans, especially since no other states are doing the same?

Electoral College reform needs to happen on a national, federal level. I think this is initiative is bad legislation, and I urge you and all Coloradans to give it a deeper look.

[F.Gordon]

9. There are already states that are being ignored

By both parties because they've basically written off those states to the opposing party.

The EV's are already seriously unbalanced. In terms of population numbers and federal revenue contributions the blood red states get a higher percentage of EV's than the beautiful blue states.

And how do you think this makes the dems in the blood red southern states feel? Do you think this makes them apathetic? Do you think that many dems don't even bother voting in these states?

We could both go back and forth using "what if" comparisons, but at this point in time we're only talking about Colorado.

And I agree....

Electoral College reform needs to happen on a national, federal level

But it never will. If the 2000 election wasn't a wakeup call for people, then I see no other way out of this problem than having the States force the hand of Congress.

[paulk]

12. you are saying that since other states are being ignored

Colorado should put itself into position to be ignored also?

[F.Gordon]

10. Finishing up my reply

Sorry I've been busy. Not trying to ignore you.

Why waste the time and money coming to a state that's going to split a certain way whether you campaign there or not? Colorado was a lock for the Republicans in 2000. Did Gore or Bush come here that election cycle? No. The only reason we're seeing campaigning here this time around is because Colorado is in play.

Please refer to my reference to States being nothing more than commodities in my other post.

Candidates will come here if they see the possibility of getting all nine CO electoral votes for themselves. If the differential is only going to be one vote (a 5-4 split) or at best three (a 6-3 split), candidates will spend their resources in a state that offers a better return.

That's fine by me. If I don't have to watch another "9/11 which child" ad...And your "better return" comment adds a little substance to my "nothing more than commodities" statement. What is campaigning these days? It's nothing more than a quick "shout out", then on to the next place. Oh, and a few "please give me lots of money". And lots of bullshit campaign ads. Lots and lots of bullshit campaign ads.....

You have expressed several reasons in this thread why you support this amendment - but you haven't supported any of these assertions with an argument as to why you think they will happen. For instance - why would this amendment help third party candidates, as you state. I don't see any change myself - Neither Perot, Anderson, or Nader got enough votes in any one district to garner a single electoral vote - I don't see how this amendment would change that equation.

I believe I have answered everything, but if there is something you feel that I'm deficient on....just let me know. But on third parties. Anderson, no. Nader, maybe. But Perot? Are you sure about that? I'd have to go back and look.

Why can't third parties break into the traditional 2 party system? Because they can't raise the obscene amounts of money that is being used today to buy States. Because they can't "win all" in a State. But what if they obtained national recognition by obtaining a few EV's?

You could make an argument that the amendment would get more people to vote, perhaps. I could see this being true in competitive districts like CO7 - but you can make the exact opposite argument for Colorado Springs (why vote if you're a Dem) or Denver (why vote if you're a Repub.) It's a wash, overall, and once again I don't see this amendment changing anything.

So, it’s just a wash? And thank you for helping support my argument with your Colorado Springs and Denver references.

You say that a Repuke (who was against it) on the radio convinced you
to vote for the amendment. I can understand why Republicans oppose this, since they are favored to win this state and stand to gain all nine of our electoral votes. I'm more concerned with the long term implications and any precedent set. I don't see this as a partisan issue.

I’m not so narrow-minded that I just automatically dislike anything that a repuke comes up with. Actually, it was the arguments that he used…..many that you are using….that sold me on it. Oh, and I’m confused. First you say that Colorado is “in play” and now you’re saying that the “repukes are favored to win this state”. Which is it?

Ask yourself - if you were in California and this initiative was on
the ballot - how would you feel about it? The Democrats have a lock on ALL California's electoral votes - the most in the nation. Would you be willing to split that with the Republicans, especially since no other states are doing the same?

Electoral College reform needs to happen on a national, federal level. I think this is initiative is bad legislation, and I urge you and all Coloradans to give it a deeper look.

See my other post for the reply on this.

For Colorado DUers that may be on the fence with A36....consider it a "safety net". I'm still a little concerned with this statistic...

Thirty-two percent of the state's registered Republicans voted in the primary, while 27 percent of the state's Democrats cast ballots.

[paulk]

13. states are commodities?

True - but, until you can change the playing field - everyone has to play by the rules in place. You're saying that since you don't like the rules, Colorado should not play at all. Until there is some alternate system of funding elections in place - we're stuck with what we have. Your comments that "states are commodities" is meaningless in this context.


My comments are not contradictory. There are almost 200,000 more registered Republicans than Democrats in this state. We have a Republican Governor, both sides of the statehouse are controlled by Republicans, both our US Senators are Republicans, and the Republicans have a 5-2 advantage in the House of Representatives. Of course Republicans are favored to win in this state. A Kerry victory
would be seen as a major upset.

My reference to "it's a wash" does not support your argument that the amendment would increase voter turnout. It does the opposite.

[F.Gordon]

14. Again. Thank you.

For pointing out how the repukes dominate this state. I loved when Tancredo gave his "humble" victory speech in 2002 proudly proclaiming how the Democrats were finished....destroyed.

I can't tell you how many people I've talked to who are afraid to admit, at first, that they are a Democrat.

The repukes already define the rules in Colorado. They not only own the game; they own the ball, the court, and the cheerleaders. The Dems just sit on the sidelines watching.

I do want Colorado to play and A36 is one way we can. I seriously doubt either of us will see substantial CFR in this country in our lifetime, so for me......A36 is one way we can put a damper on the huge economic advantage the repukes have. Groups like Swift Boats and the AJS won't want to invest in a commodity that doesn't have a 100% return.

Remember when Strickland was favored to win in 2002? This was due to projections that there would be a lower voter turnout. The State GOP saw this and said "no problem". They went out and leased 500 cell phones and waged a massive GOTV campaign. And poor Stan can't even afford to fix his copier or buy a VCR.

[Lucky Luciano]

17. I am with you...

See

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=822000&mesg_id=822217&page=

b*sh wins with this method in 2000 if applied to all states and it does not reflect popular votes.

This way WYoming would always be 2-1 and CO would likely always be 5-4 effectively giving them the same representation!!! That would be nuts!

[paulk]

20. your posts in that thread were excellent

I had originally thought the CO model would be by district - but it's going to be just straight statewide proportional voting - which is even worse.

[El Supremo]

4. I really hate Amendment 36

And this is the reason why:

http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=6e1127c7-0abe-421a-01f5-9f0e8933ae71&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf

It could totally backfire for Kerry.

[F.Gordon]

5. How so?

It could totally backfire for Kerry.

I don't have time to do the 13 billion different electoral mathematical combinations, but I don't believe that Colorado is going to determine who the next President is.

I also don't buy most of the polls out these days. I also don't think the election will be as close as the media is selling it to be.

I'm for putting the old EC out to pasture. If only in Colorado, that's fine with me. We need to start the ball rolling somewhere so we can get to the point where we use the popular vote to elect a President.

And to answer my own question from above....YES, A36 will take effect on election day if passed.

[paulk]

6. will it get the ball rolling?

it's far more likely to marginalize Colorado's importance in presidential elections - unless other states follow suit. And why should they? If enough states go with proportional voting, that would give "winner take all" states an incentive NOT to. They would then hold all the cards - and with them the ability to have a disproportionate say in who gets elected.

Also -

It will cost the state money. Like it or not, political campaigns bring a lot of money into the state - and a proportional voting scheme would take Colorado right off the board.
Why contest a state that's going to go 5-2 or 4-3, no matter what?

The electoral college needs to be thrown out - but a state by state piecemeal approach will only serve to make things even more unbalanced, IMHO.

[F.Gordon]

8. You have to start somewhere

But if you no one takes that first step then real change will never occur. A state by state piecemeal approach could eventually give Congress the wakeup call they need to dump the electoral college. If the system becomes unbalanced enough because 6, 8, or 10 states initiate this change then Congress may be forced to dump the electoral college.

Personally, I'd prefer not to have our Supreme Court determine who our next President is going to be anymore.

I'd also rather see our economy get its revenue from job growth. I don't see how (some out of state) Corporations receiving campaign money that own our local broadcast companies is a benefit to our state economy.

And

Why contest a state that's going to go 5-2 or 4-3, no matter what?

Your question goes to the real heart of the matter. Our current system makes the States nothing more than commodities that political parties "invest" in. How does that benefit the people? You know, the ones that actually vote?

I'd rather see candidates discuss relevant issues with ALL the people instead of just holding $2,000 a plate fundraising dinners for a select group of people. So a select group of people can purchase that state.

I understand your points, but I'm stilling likin' A36 and I'm supporting it.

[DaveinMD]

11. if this amendment passes

it virtually ensures a Kerry presidency.

[Jeff1965]

18. We Finally Have A Chance To Win The State's 9 Votes

And you would give four to Bush?

Sounds like this Ammendment will backfire.

More Democrats move to this state every day, so the Ammendment would backfire against us.

We won in 1992 and we can win again this year.

[F.Gordon]

19. Is Perot running again?

In 1992, Perot won 23% of the vote, and Clinton carried the state with 40% to Bush’s 36%.

I'd rather see Kerry get 4 votes, rather than ZERO. In every EC scenario I've seen Colorado is a weak player to begin with. I'd rather protect Kerry's minimum of 4 votes and concentrate on taking back some seats in the house and senate.

[Kanary]

21. I'm voting FOR and encouraging others to do the same.

After much thinking and weighing options, I've decided the best thing is to VOTE FOR this step in proportional voting. I agree with the poster above that a state-by-state approach is necessary at this point. The details can be worked out when this becomes national. Right now it's IMPERATIVE to give Coloradans broader choice.

First, if Kerry gets in, being able to push for 3rd party representation will encourage more of the "holding Kerry's feet ot the fire" that is given lip service, but probably won't amount to much in reality. With this in place, there are MANY COLORADANS who will *actually* be forming viable alternatives!

Secondly, I saw, with great disgust, just how much disdain the ruling DLC has for Coloradans. With a way to force our voices being heard, they will have to do a certainly amount of listening, which otherwise will be nil.

Yup, Amendment 36 can count on MY vote!

Kanary