News Colorado Amendment 36 Voting Date: When?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wasteofo2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    College Idea
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around Colorado's Amendment 36, which proposes a proportional allocation of the state's electoral votes in presidential elections, contrasting with the current winner-takes-all system. The amendment would allow candidates to receive electoral votes based on their share of the popular vote, potentially leading to a more representative outcome. Participants express mixed feelings about the amendment, with some appreciating the principle of proportional representation while others worry it may diminish Colorado's electoral influence compared to larger states. Concerns are raised about the implications of voter initiatives for constitutional amendments, suggesting that the average voter may not fully grasp the significance of such changes. The conversation also touches on the broader implications of electoral systems, emphasizing the need for consistency across states and the importance of recognizing the power of individual votes in shaping electoral outcomes.
wasteofo2
Messages
477
Reaction score
2
I'm sure most of you have heard that there's a proposition in Colorado (Amendment 36) that their electoral votes should be split proportionally among the presidential candidates. So if Bush gets 55% and Kerry gets 44%, Bush gets 5 votes and Kerry gets 4 votes. Anyway, I was wondering if anyone had any idea when this would be voted on. Is the date not yet decided, will it be on election day, will it be before election day?

Thanks,
Jacob
 
Physics news on Phys.org
(c) THE ELECTION CERTIFICATION PROCESS REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH (b) OF THIS SUBSECTION SHALL APPLY TO THE BALLOTS CAST FOR PRESIDENTIAL TICKETS AT THE NOVEMBER 2, 2004 GENERAL ELECTION AND AT GENERAL ELECTIONS HELD AFTER 2004 AT WHICH PRESIDENTIAL TICKETS ARE ON THE STATEWIDE BALLOT.


...(c) "THIS INITIATIVE" MEANS THE VOTER-INITIATED CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT, APPROVED AT THE NOVEMBER 2, 2004 GENERAL ELECTION,
PROVIDING FOR POPULAR PROPORTIONAL SELECTION OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS.

http://www.lawanddemocracy.org/pdffiles/COamend36.pdf

See also
http://www.lawanddemocracy.org/amend36.html

The Mode of Electing the President
From the New York Packet.
Friday, March 14, 1788.

HAMILTON

To the People of the State of New York:

THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has appeared in print, has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded.1 I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished for.

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possesses the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.

Another and no less important desideratum was, that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves. He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence. This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice.

All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President. But as a majority of the votes might not always happen to centre in one man, and as it might be unsafe to permit less than a majority to be conclusive, it is provided that, in such a contingency, the House of Representatives shall select out of the candidates who shall have the five highest number of votes, the man who in their opinion may be best qualified for the office.

http://yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed68.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It will be voted on this election, to take effect immediately, if approved. Of course, the lawyers for both sides are perched and ready, so, if approved, it will be weeks at the earliest before it's really resolved, probably before the US Supreme Court.

My opinion on this is mixed. I like the general principle and might even vote for it, but I would have preferred something along the lines of Maine and Nebraska. I think the state's giving up too much by reducing it's electoral votes to one as compared to the electoral votes of California or New York. (Of course, the Nebraska/Maine system wouldn't be very good for me this election - Colorado Springs is very pro-Bush - he'll win a huge majority of the vote from my congressional district).

The winner take all system is definitely flawed. Western New York and New York City are practically like different states, but the state goes wichever way New York City goes - people in Buffalo may as well not vote for president.

Many other states have a huge divide in their populace. Western Washington and Eastern Washington have little in common. Ohio is very segmented between Southern Ohiya and the Northeastern Ohio rust belt. Colorado is practically like four different states - Western 'We have all the water' Colorado, Eastern 'This looks like Kansas to me' Colorado, I-25, and Denver.

On the flip side, I'm not even in favor of the idea of Amendments to the State Constitution being accomplished via voter initiative. The amendments that have been approved in Colorado tend to support the idea that a representative republic works a lot better than a true democracy. I don't think the average voter understands the difference between voting on a tax initiative or an amendment to the constitution - one is like dating and the other is like marriage.
 
BobG said:
It will be voted on this election, to take effect immediately, if approved. Of course, the lawyers for both sides are perched and ready, so, if approved, it will be weeks at the earliest before it's really resolved, probably before the US Supreme Court.

My opinion on this is mixed. I like the general principle and might even vote for it, but I would have preferred something along the lines of Maine and Nebraska. I think the state's giving up too much by reducing it's electoral votes to one as compared to the electoral votes of California or New York. (Of course, the Nebraska/Maine system wouldn't be very good for me this election - Colorado Springs is very pro-Bush - he'll win a huge majority of the vote from my congressional district).

The winner take all system is definitely flawed. Western New York and New York City are practically like different states, but the state goes wichever way New York City goes - people in Buffalo may as well not vote for president.

Many other states have a huge divide in their populace. Western Washington and Eastern Washington have little in common. Ohio is very segmented between Southern Ohiya and the Northeastern Ohio rust belt. Colorado is practically like four different states - Western 'We have all the water' Colorado, Eastern 'This looks like Kansas to me' Colorado, I-25, and Denver.

On the flip side, I'm not even in favor of the idea of Amendments to the State Constitution being accomplished via voter initiative. The amendments that have been approved in Colorado tend to support the idea that a representative republic works a lot better than a true democracy. I don't think the average voter understands the difference between voting on a tax initiative or an amendment to the constitution - one is like dating and the other is like marriage.


As for the latter portion of your post, I have to say, I agree and well put.

The great problem with this voter initiative, as it impacts the country as a whole, is that it is ultimately unbalancing to the process. In a national election, the rules governing voting should be consistant across the country. I would further encourage making other systems consistant nationally.

I think the big argument here is the power of a vote. The problem is not that votes don't matter in some places, but that voters don't actualize, or even realize the true power of their votes.

On a basic level, votes matter in popular vote elections, like congressional races. The Electoral College exists to balance out the powers of these popular votes (which are also winner take all, but in a different manner), with an election that, as Hamilton points out, creates a balance between the disinterested and sometimes uneducated public and the representatives who effective choose the president.

The Electoral College has more and more become a poplar vote as it is, and the changes within specific states increase that effect.

The unused power of a vote is the matter of changing tides. For example, while there is no chance for third party candidate in this election to win, votes for a third party candidate can show a growing possibility for a third party to win. If Perot's supportors continued to support him, he would likely have taken 20-25% of the popular vote in the second election he ran in (also had he not dropped out). He took something like 18.6% of the popular vote in the first election he ran. I think this is supported by the fact that he took over 9% of the popular vote dispite dropping out.

This trend would have yielded the potential for a serious attempt at a third party, or a revamping of the current two parties at the bare minimum. This is the true power of a vote, but it has to be made consistantly, and the people of this country need to first realize and then actualize that power.

Someone may live in a state which consistantly goes to the other presidential candidate, but they can make a push for change by always voting and encouraging others similarily minded to vote.

The power of vote is not simply the ability to elect someone, but a way to encourage change. There is a particular election locally here where the incumbant is a better choice, but not a good one. The challenger has no chance of winning, he's 23 points behind in the polls, but I'll be voting for this challenger, despite thinking he's not the right choice, to show the possibility of a future challenger defeated an incumbant. Likewise, I don't like Nader, but I voted for him in 2000 because I disagreed with Bush & Gore and wanted to show support for whomever the strongest third party candidate was to show that its possible and there may be a growing trend of voting against the two main parties.
 
Similar to the 2024 thread, here I start the 2025 thread. As always it is getting increasingly difficult to predict, so I will make a list based on other article predictions. You can also leave your prediction here. Here are the predictions of 2024 that did not make it: Peter Shor, David Deutsch and all the rest of the quantum computing community (various sources) Pablo Jarrillo Herrero, Allan McDonald and Rafi Bistritzer for magic angle in twisted graphene (various sources) Christoph...
Thread 'My experience as a hostage'
I believe it was the summer of 2001 that I made a trip to Peru for my work. I was a private contractor doing automation engineering and programming for various companies, including Frito Lay. Frito had purchased a snack food plant near Lima, Peru, and sent me down to oversee the upgrades to the systems and the startup. Peru was still suffering the ills of a recent civil war and I knew it was dicey, but the money was too good to pass up. It was a long trip to Lima; about 14 hours of airtime...

Similar threads

Back
Top