Election reform and changes to the ConstitutionBy Rob Richie
Published April 30th 2006 in The Denver Post
Both Tara Ross (April 24 Open Forum) and Jim Riley ("Presidential
election reform: The current system works," April 23 Perspective
pro-con) are wrong to suggest the national popular vote proposal
recently passed by the Colorado senate to improve presidential
elections is not in the spirit of the U.S. Constitution.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Our constitutional framers explicitly delegated to states the power to decide how best to allocate presidential electors. It took decades for most states to settle on allocating electoral votes to the statewide vote winner.
Rather then restrict states' options, our framers gave states the power to decide what's best for their people. Today it is in the interests of all Americans to have a national popular vote for president where every vote is equal. Ross and Riley might want to change the Constitution, but most prefer statutory changes first.
Rob Richie
Executive Director
FairVote, The Center for Voting and Democracy
Takoma Park, Md.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Our constitutional framers explicitly delegated to states the power to decide how best to allocate presidential electors. It took decades for most states to settle on allocating electoral votes to the statewide vote winner.
Rather then restrict states' options, our framers gave states the power to decide what's best for their people. Today it is in the interests of all Americans to have a national popular vote for president where every vote is equal. Ross and Riley might want to change the Constitution, but most prefer statutory changes first.
Rob Richie
Executive Director
FairVote, The Center for Voting and Democracy
Takoma Park, Md.