October 18, 200421 yr I am surprised with the election as close as it is, a few electoral votes this way or that could have a big diffrence, that this ballot initative is not getting talked about all that much. If you don't know what it is, if it passed, 4 of Colorado's 9 electoral votes will go to the loser of the state. If it passes for example and if Bush wins Colorado he gets 5 electoral votes and Kerry will get 4. If it doesn't pass Bush would get all 9 electoral votes in that case. So there is a potential swing of 8 electoral votes which could be enough to swing the election.
October 18, 200421 yr Does the loser need to achieve a certain percentage of the vote in order for the electoral votes to be split
October 18, 200421 yr Author Does the loser need to achieve a certain percentage of the vote in order for the electoral votes to be split 595337[/snapback] Nope just second. But either way, Colorado is still a toss up, whoever wins it will win it by only 1-5%. I think if you get 55% of the vote you get 55% of the electoral. So in this election as tight as it is, unless someone has a catastrophic melt down the winner will get 5 and loser 4.
October 18, 200421 yr Does the loser need to achieve a certain percentage of the vote in order for the electoral votes to be split 595337[/snapback] Nope just second. But either way, Colorado is still a toss up, whoever wins it will win it by only 1-5%. I think if you get 55% of the vote you get 55% of the electoral. So in this election as tight as it is, unless someone has a catastrophic melt down the winner will get 5 and loser 4. 595350[/snapback] are u for or against this initiative?
October 18, 200421 yr Author Does the loser need to achieve a certain percentage of the vote in order for the electoral votes to be split 595337[/snapback] Nope just second. But either way, Colorado is still a toss up, whoever wins it will win it by only 1-5%. I think if you get 55% of the vote you get 55% of the electoral. So in this election as tight as it is, unless someone has a catastrophic melt down the winner will get 5 and loser 4. 595350[/snapback] are u for or against this initiative? 595352[/snapback] I will take the stance of how many Colorado democrats feel. If Kerry moves up in the polls then I am very much against it, but since it seems that Bush is holding onto a slim lead in Colorado I am all for it. I want Kerry to win, what can I say? I will say however I think this is a bad time to have something like thsi on the ballot, it should either wait or have already been taken care of.
October 18, 200421 yr Does the loser need to achieve a certain percentage of the vote in order for the electoral votes to be split 595337[/snapback] Nope just second. But either way, Colorado is still a toss up, whoever wins it will win it by only 1-5%. I think if you get 55% of the vote you get 55% of the electoral. So in this election as tight as it is, unless someone has a catastrophic melt down the winner will get 5 and loser 4. 595350[/snapback] are u for or against this initiative? 595352[/snapback] I will take the stance of how many Colorado democrats feel. If Kerry moves up in the polls then I am very much against it, but since it seems that Bush is holding onto a slim lead in Colorado I am all for it. I want Kerry to win, what can I say? I will say however I think this is a bad time to have something like thsi on the ballot, it should either wait or have already been taken care of. 595371[/snapback] I understand, but assuming it would have been on the 2002 ballot would u have been in favor or against?
October 18, 200421 yr Does the loser need to achieve a certain percentage of the vote in order for the electoral votes to be split 595337[/snapback] Nope just second. But either way, Colorado is still a toss up, whoever wins it will win it by only 1-5%. I think if you get 55% of the vote you get 55% of the electoral. So in this election as tight as it is, unless someone has a catastrophic melt down the winner will get 5 and loser 4. 595350[/snapback] are u for or against this initiative? 595352[/snapback] I will take the stance of how many Colorado democrats feel. If Kerry moves up in the polls then I am very much against it, but since it seems that Bush is holding onto a slim lead in Colorado I am all for it. I want Kerry to win, what can I say? I will say however I think this is a bad time to have something like thsi on the ballot, it should either wait or have already been taken care of. 595371[/snapback] I understand, but assuming it would have been on the 2002 ballot would u have been in favor or against? 595385[/snapback] If going by the what benefits the party, it would probably still be a yes since Colorado usually goes Republican.
October 18, 200421 yr so this poll basically gives Colorado only 1 electoral vote instead of 9 595403[/snapback] In terms of differntial yes. I think this is bad for the electoral process and we defintely dont need a precendent like this to be set to further screw over the democratic proc3ess
October 18, 200421 yr Author I understand, but assuming it would have been on the 2002 ballot would u have been in favor or against? 595385[/snapback] I would have been for it. I am against the electoral college process, really the whole pluralist election system.
October 18, 200421 yr this is a good thing. now votes in 'non vital' states actually might mean something.
October 18, 200421 yr Author this is a good thing. now votes in 'non vital' states actually might mean something. 595423[/snapback] If this passes through the nation I think more people would turn out to vote. Because currently, why would democrats come out to vote in places like Georgia, Alabama, etc. Or why would republicans come out to vote in places like New York or California? If you pass something like this in all the states I am sure there would be more voter turn out.
October 18, 200421 yr this is a good thing. now votes in 'non vital' states actually might mean something. 595423[/snapback] If this passes through the nation I think more people would turn out to vote. Because currently, why would democrats come out to vote in places like Georgia, Alabama, etc. Or why would republicans come out to vote in places like New York or California? If you pass something like this in all the states I am sure there would be more voter turn out. 595429[/snapback] Thats true the problem is there need to be certain provisions like if the candidate wins by a certain amount you dont split the vote, like if its 55-45. The electoral college process is better than just a popular vote election, because then california texas, new york, and florida would always choose our president so there would no incentive for someone from north dakota to go out and vote
October 18, 200421 yr agree .. the electoral college is good i don't like this CO wording though it's way to simple and won't always reflect how the state truly feels and in the end minimizes the CO impact to vote on this in a manner of context for just 1 election is very foolish and shows a lack of foresight i really want "x" candidate this year to win is a horrible way to make long standing policy what I would like to see is a simple split in all states .. this would still provide the electoral college with representation in small states but also swing closer to the popular figures if CO (or any state) did this I would like to see the # of electoral votes in a close percentage to the level of popular vote for that state ... if a candidate gets 60% of the vote, he gets 60% of the electoral votes I think this would encourage better turnout as well .. i get frusterated by people who don't turn out because on the presidental election and end up neglecting all the local races and referendums (then again if they don't care about them I don't necessarily want them voting anyhow) there would be issues, such as 3rd party votes that would need to be worked out but I feel that winner gets 5 loser get 4 is way to simple ... especially when the base # of electoral votes is bound to change ... will this go to the ballot again if CO grows and ends up getting 10 EC votes? ... will they need to agree on a 10-6 split?
October 18, 200421 yr Author Like I said. I think the idea behind this plan is good, it opens up a good discussion so we can discuss the electoral college since many people think it is outdated or no longer effective. I just think the timing and context it is being done in is less then optimal.
October 18, 200421 yr as do I ... I think a lot of people are a little more emotional than usual over this one and may rush this into law without really thinking it through from a long term perspective it is something that should be debated and done in a non-presidential year (if possible in CO) is this getting much debate in CO?! I know that the major prop. in AZ is prop. 200 which deals with illegals, voting, jails and benefits there has been a ton of good information on this and it actually has changed how I'd vote on this from an informed perspective
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.