"More on electoral math" was the heading of a September 14th ILB entry on Colorado's ballot initiative to ""scrap the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes practiced by 48 states. Instead, the state's votes would be divided in proportion to the popular vote."
An interesting AP story today by Ann Gearan is sub-headed "Court challenges likely if Colorado's Nov. 2 ballot measure passes." Some quotes:
If the ballot initiative passes, Colorado will change the way it awards its nine Electoral College votes for president. The electoral votes would be apportioned according to the popular vote instead of all going to the candidate who comes in first.The Miami Herald has an interesting piece headlined "Bush vs. Kerry could be replay of Bush vs. Gore." It begins:The change would take effect with this election, all but assuring an immediate court challenge. * * *
If either candidate ends up just four or five electoral votes shy of victory this time, the election could hang on two questions from Colorado: Will the initiative pass and will it withstand a constitutional challenge almost certain to race to the nine Supreme Court justices in Washington.
"Colorado could be the Florida of 2004," said Ted Halaby, chairman of the Colorado Republican Party and an opponent of the ballot measure.
Proponents say the change, if adopted nationally, would prevent puzzling outcomes like the one of four years ago when Gore won more votes overall but lacked the Electoral College votes to claim the presidency.
"It's simple — we want every vote to be counted," said Julie Brown, director of the lobbying effort to pass the ballot initiative.
Colorado's proposal is unlikely to be adopted in every state, at least in the short run. If upheld in court, however, similar ballot initiatives could be an attractive strategy for Democrats in particular states that tend to vote Republican, and for Republicans in states that tend to go Democratic.
For example, Republicans could claim a share of California's enormous pot of 55 electoral votes that would otherwise go entirely to the Democratic presidential candidate, and Democrats could snatch some of the 34 electoral votes that Texas would otherwise award to the Republican candidate. * * *
If the initiative passes, Colorado would become the third state to reject the winner-take-all approach, but its system would be unique. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, award electoral votes according to which candidate wins in each congressional district. Even with that system, all the electoral votes from those states have always gone to a single candidate.
The Constitution sets up the Electoral College as a buffer between the popular vote and the White House, and gives states room to choose how they will select electors. That power, however, is given to state legislatures. There is no mention of whether voters could make the decision directly, as they would in Colorado by voting yes on the ballot question.
A Supreme Court challenge would probably focus on whether the voters were an extension of the Legislature in this instance, a question that could, like the Bush v. Gore case in 2000, require the justices to decide matters of law and politics at once.
Anticipation of a close, exciting presidential election is mounting, so here's an election night scenario that rivals the ''hanging chad'' madness of 2000 in Florida:See also this story from the Chicago Tribune, headlined "Fit to be tied? A 50-50 electoral split isn't out of the question," that posits a number of scenarios.George Bush and John Kerry are neck and neck in the electoral vote count, with each just a few votes short of the magic number for victory: 270 electoral votes.
Bush narrowly wins Colorado, which has 9 electoral votes, and that puts him over the top.
But just as the networks are about to declare Bush the winner, word comes that Colorado voters have adopted little-noticed Amendment 36, scrapping the winner-take-all system -- starting with this election.
The state's electoral votes are awarded by percentage of the popular vote. So instead of getting all 9 votes, Bush gets 5, Kerry gets 4 -- and Kerry squeaks in, until the first lawsuit is filed at midnight and armies of lawyers parachute into Denver to battle over the referendum.
''If that amendment passes, and the candidates are in the 265-275 range of electoral votes, it could be a legal nightmare,'' predicted Michael Kanner, a political scientist at the University of Colorado. "The courts could decide the election.''
The Denver Post today takes a stand against "Amendment 36," in an editorial headlined "Don't divide electoral vote" that concludes: "The current Electoral system undoubtedly needs reform, but the proposal to allocate electors in proportion to the popular vote in this one state is not the answer."
On the other hand, the Fort Wayne Indiana Journal Gazette has an editorial today titled "Split Indiana electoral votes" that concludes:
Ideally, Congress would eliminate the Electoral College and let Americans select the president by popular vote. Considering that is unlikely to happen soon, Indiana lawmakers should give citizens more reasons to vote and begin the process of allowing Hoosiers to split their electoral votes.The is nothing in the Indiana Constitution about the choosing of electors. Instead, the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1, clause 2, provides:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number Constitution of the United States of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the congress: but no senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.(Also of interest are clauses 3 and 4.) And the Indiana statutes, at IC 3-8-4-2, provide that each parties' candidates for presidential electors shall be nominated at its state convention. Presidental elections are covered by IC 3-10-4. Thus, a change similar to that proposed in Colorado could be made in Indiana via the General Assembly.
Finally, if you are in a listening mood, NPR's Weekend Edition this morning has a good "pros and cons" on the Colorado effort. Listen here.
Posted by Marcia Oddi at October 10, 2004 03:23 PM