Time to rethink presidential electionsLegislators are weighing changes to a system that gives too much influence to voters in battleground states at the expense of voters elsewhere
We hope never to live through another election like 2000, when it took 35 days and a U.S. Supreme Court decision to settle the presidency. The ordeal shined a spotlight on the Electoral College system and its most prominent quirk - that a candidate who wins the popular vote can be forced to stand by while a rival takes the oath of office.
The system also gives a modest number of battleground states too much voting power. States that are dependably Republican or Democratic are all but ignored during campaigns in favor of swing states. The Electoral College discourages voter participation because people in the majority of states know before the election who will win their votes. Minority-party voters in Democratic Massachusetts and Republican Wyoming know their votes won't count, because their Electoral College votes are never in doubt.
For years, political science wonks have studied the unique Electoral College system with an eye toward updating the process to suit this day and age.
State Senate Bill 223 proposes a clever way for candidates to reach an Electoral College victory that reflects the will of a majority of voters. While we're not convinced it's the best approach, we're glad to see it tested in state legislatures.
The proposal comes closer to direct election of the president while channeling the results through the Electoral College and so avoiding (perhaps) the need for a constitutional amendment.
The proposal was developed by a multipartisan national group and is circulating across the country in book form - 620 pages, to be exact. The Colorado bill is sponsored by Democratic Sen. Ken Gordon and Rep. Tom Plant. The plan calls for states to form a compact and pledge their electoral votes not to the majority candidate in their own state, but to the winner of the national popular vote. The constitution allows states to allocate their electoral votes any way they wish, and so if enough states joined the compact, the popular vote winner would earn the 270-vote electoral majority.
In 2004, we opposed Amendment 36 on the Colorado ballot because its single-state approach unilaterally diluted the impact
of Colorado's electoral votes. True reform should be broader.
The Founding Fathers' rationale for creating the Electoral College is debatable even today. Some believe it was meant to balance the power of small and large states. Others thought it was to create a system of indirect election of good candidates from which the House of Representatives could make the final selection. Whatever the reason, the system creates strange anomalies in both campaigning and in settling the result.
Congress has considered amendments to eliminate the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes. In 1969, a constitutional amendment endorsed by President Nixon called for direct popular election of the president. It passed the U.S. House by two-thirds but failed in the Senate a year later. It was rejected not by small states but by lawmakers from Southern states fearful of the changing dynamics of racial politics.
Changing the Constitution is tough going, requiring approval of two-thirds of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. The compact proposal is being advanced because its authors cannot hope to muster the support for the direct election that Nixon supported.
Colorado has often been ignored in presidential contests, having been reliably Republican and casting only nine electoral votes. The state became a battleground in 2004 largely because Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry was born here and because of the state's growing number of independent voters.
We favor attempts to change the current system not only because it will boost the value of a Colorado voter to the same level as a voter from, say, Ohio or Florida, but because a system that produces a majority winner will boost political engagement across all 50 states.
The system also gives a modest number of battleground states too much voting power. States that are dependably Republican or Democratic are all but ignored during campaigns in favor of swing states. The Electoral College discourages voter participation because people in the majority of states know before the election who will win their votes. Minority-party voters in Democratic Massachusetts and Republican Wyoming know their votes won't count, because their Electoral College votes are never in doubt.
For years, political science wonks have studied the unique Electoral College system with an eye toward updating the process to suit this day and age.
State Senate Bill 223 proposes a clever way for candidates to reach an Electoral College victory that reflects the will of a majority of voters. While we're not convinced it's the best approach, we're glad to see it tested in state legislatures.
The proposal comes closer to direct election of the president while channeling the results through the Electoral College and so avoiding (perhaps) the need for a constitutional amendment.
The proposal was developed by a multipartisan national group and is circulating across the country in book form - 620 pages, to be exact. The Colorado bill is sponsored by Democratic Sen. Ken Gordon and Rep. Tom Plant. The plan calls for states to form a compact and pledge their electoral votes not to the majority candidate in their own state, but to the winner of the national popular vote. The constitution allows states to allocate their electoral votes any way they wish, and so if enough states joined the compact, the popular vote winner would earn the 270-vote electoral majority.
In 2004, we opposed Amendment 36 on the Colorado ballot because its single-state approach unilaterally diluted the impact
of Colorado's electoral votes. True reform should be broader.
The Founding Fathers' rationale for creating the Electoral College is debatable even today. Some believe it was meant to balance the power of small and large states. Others thought it was to create a system of indirect election of good candidates from which the House of Representatives could make the final selection. Whatever the reason, the system creates strange anomalies in both campaigning and in settling the result.
Congress has considered amendments to eliminate the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes. In 1969, a constitutional amendment endorsed by President Nixon called for direct popular election of the president. It passed the U.S. House by two-thirds but failed in the Senate a year later. It was rejected not by small states but by lawmakers from Southern states fearful of the changing dynamics of racial politics.
Changing the Constitution is tough going, requiring approval of two-thirds of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. The compact proposal is being advanced because its authors cannot hope to muster the support for the direct election that Nixon supported.
Colorado has often been ignored in presidential contests, having been reliably Republican and casting only nine electoral votes. The state became a battleground in 2004 largely because Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry was born here and because of the state's growing number of independent voters.
We favor attempts to change the current system not only because it will boost the value of a Colorado voter to the same level as a voter from, say, Ohio or Florida, but because a system that produces a majority winner will boost political engagement across all 50 states.