A drive in Colorado to change the way the state’s electoral votes are allocated is not only one of the most interesting ballot initiatives in the country, it also has the potential to have an immediate impact on this year’s presidential election.
Here’s the deal in a nutshell: right now, Colorado, like every state except Maine and Nebraska, offers all of its nine electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes in the state. It’s a winner-take-all system, whether the winning candidate wins by one vote of one million votes.
Some in Colorado, however, are pushing to make the allocation proportional to how people actually vote.
J. Jorge Klor de Alva is the major donor to The People’s Choice for President — a nonprofit group seeking voters’ permission to award Colorado’s Electoral College votes proportionally as a percentage of the statewide popular vote.
For example, a candidate who wins 60 percent at the polls could snag five of the state’s nine electoral votes, leaving the remaining four to a candidate who wins 40 percent on Election Day.
The People’s Choice for President has been collecting signatures to get this on the ballot and it appears that the group has succeeded.
A plan to scrap the winner-take-all system of allocating electoral votes in Colorado is heading to the ballot in November.
[…]
Secretary of State Donetta Davidson said Friday that supporters have gathered enough signatures to put the measure on the November ballot.
In a close election, dividing Colorado’s electoral votes to reflect voter preferences could be the difference between winning and losing. Had this system been in place four years ago, for example, Gore would have reached 270, even without Florida.
Maine and Nebraska already have something resembling proportional allotment, but it’s not quite the same. These relatively-small states give two electoral votes to the candidate with more votes statewide and then additional electoral votes based on vote totals from their respective congressional districts. In theory, the state could end up dividing their electoral tally, but it’s never happened — Maine and Nebraska have never had to split their votes.
In Colorado, however, the likelihood for split votes is practically guaranteed. In a state that has generally backed Republican candidates over the last century (Colorado has backed the Dem just twice since 1952), this makes the state’s GOP leaders very nervous.
Republican Gov. Bill Owens and Republican State Party Chairman Ted Halaby have criticized the Colorado proposal, saying it would lessen the state’s clout in presidential elections. They warn that candidates will ignore the state and its nine electoral votes if the measure passes.
I actually believe the opposite is true. If Colorado is considered a traditional GOP stronghold, candidates are unlikely to invest heavily to win it. Republican candidates assume they’ll get above 50% of the vote (and all nine of the state’s electoral votes) and Dems assume it may be an unattainable goal. If the vote was proportional, however, both sides would have to go all out in the state to maximize their chances.
And, just for an added twist, if the ballot initiative passes, the impact would be felt immediately.
If approved Nov. 2, the constitutional amendment would affect this year’s choice for president by immediately permitting the division of Colorado electoral votes.
As a result, Colorado Republicans have an added challenge on their hands. They’re fighting to support Bush in the presidential race, Peter Coors in a Senate race, and to defeat this initiative, which is called Amendment 36. It will also require Bush to spend resources on Colorado that he’d much prefer to spend elsewhere.
Keep an eye on this one.