Hurricane I

And Colorado has now taken it's place beside Ohio and Pennsylvania as States that Will Really Matter In The 2004 Election. For those who do not have time to fully pursue the internet because of things like "jobs" or "school," a quick summary. On Nov. 2, voters in Colorado will vote for President. More importantly, they will also vote on whether to stay with the current "Winner Takes All" System favored by 47 other states (technically, I suppose, 45 other states and 2 commonwealths - thanks Massachusetts and Virginia for being different) or to award the Electoral College delegates proportionally. (I'm assuming after 2000 all reasonably educated people know how the Electoral College system works. If you don't, you should be ashamed of yourself.) The really interesting thing is there is a stipulation in the proposition that would make it effectively immediately, which would almost certainly profoundly impact the outcome of the election. Colorado has 9 delegates, so even if the Dems lose the state (as we all assume they will), Kerry could pick up as many as 4 more delegates. In 2000, if only, blah, blah.

The part that amuses me is the people who oppose this idea, i.e. Republicans - see above - have named themselves "Coloradans Against a Really Stupid Idea." I like the upfront title with no possibility of gray area. It's refreshing.

But it does obscure the larger issue of Is This A Good Idea? I tend to think so, depending on how it is implemented. I know the way Maine does it is by county, since that's how the number of delegates is decided to start with(though I don't know what they do with the two extra delegates that represent the Senate? I shall look this up.) It's a Winner Takes All by county, which is cleaner than taking percentages.

The other reason I like this system is that it is totally up to the states (technically, state legislatures, which is why if this thing passes and it makes a difference, we're going to see Kerry v. Bush in the Supreme Court). Congress created a law back in the 60s (I think it was 64 but I could be getting my Civil Rights Act and Voting Acts confused) to switch to a direct voting system for primaries, but changing the Electoral College on a National Scale would require an Amendment to the Constitution, which would not pass. (PSCI 100 Lesson: Amendments require 2/3 of both houses of Congress IN ADDITION TO 3/4 of the State Legislatures. I'm still impressed that we managed to convince enough people that banning alcohol on a national scale was first a great idea and then a dismal failure.) Smaller swing states, like Ohio, would never support a National Amendment that would reduce their current disproportionate impact on the national election. 75% of 50 States is 37.5 States, so 38 State legislatures would have to approve the amendment (assuming Congress can be persuaded) Somewhere between 10 and 15 states are considered "swing states" and it would be in their self interest to vote down such an amendment.

Votes by county would totally change the way national elections are run, and would make them much more expensive. We'd have swing counties instead of swing states, and it would force candidates to make a much larger sweep of the country instead of 25 trips to Ohio. All the campaign finance laws would have to be rewritten, and public financing would put another burden on an already tight budget.

This TNR (the link might not show you the whole article, since TNR is really bitchy about making you pay for stuff) article thinks the Electoral College is stupid, which I disagree with, but he does point out some interesting "what ifs" involving Ralph "Douchbag-In-Chief" Nader.

Overall, we need to understand that the system will never be "fair" by everyone's standards, since no one is truly objective. To Paraphrase Orwell, any one system will be more fair to some people than to others. We just need to find a system that works, keep it constant and above all, enforce the rules. It won't - can't - be perfect, but we can only do our best.