Coloradans need to wake up to the threat of House Bill 1299, which would spit on the U.S. Constitution and render Colorado irrelevant in national political elections. The Left is pushing the issue forward because it can, hoping to prey on the ignorance and apathy of the general populace. But perhaps they forgot what happened with Amendment 36 in 2004, which voters rejected nearly two-to-one.
HB 1299 is worse than that: Rather than divide up Colorado’s electoral votes proportionally based on our own state’s popular vote, this bill would sell all our electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Colorado truly would be political flyover country, our state’s interests all but forgotten.
Do I need to rehash the arguments? Without time, I instead point you to:
- El Presidente’s sound case against HB 1299, with links to other key opinions
- Amy Oliver gives an excellent explanation of the dangers of HB 1299
- Rossputin notes how HB 1299 runs counter to the genius of our Founding Fathers’ political experiment
- Joshua further highlights HB 1299’s potential constitutional problems vis a vis interstate compacts and the danger of losing state control over our election process
Mr. Bob is right: If you live in Colorado, it’s time to contact your state senator (to find your state senate district, go here and click on “State Senate Districts”).
Only 3 Democrats in the House had the courage to vote against this monstrosity: Kudos to Jeanne Labuda, John Soper, and Sal Pace. The problem is there were too many Democrats to overcome their lost votes. That doesn’t have to be the case in the state senate. Make your voice heard.
The Democrats in charge at the statehouse at best are wasting our time by pursuing this agenda. The people have already spoken in 2004. It’s time to speak loudly again.
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators — 460 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware –75%, Maine — 71%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 73% , Massachusetts — 73%, New York — 79%, and Washington — 77%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 25 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
68% OF COLORADO VOTERS SUPPORT A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IN DECEMBER 2008 POLL
A survey of 800 Colorado voters conducted on December 21-22, 2008 showed 68% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 79% among Democrats, 56% among Republicans, and 70% among independents.
By age, support was 83% among 18-29 year olds, 59% among 30-45 year olds, 71% among 46-65 year olds, and 66% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 77% among women and 58% among men.
By race, support was 68% among whites (representing 81% of respondents), 75% among Hispanics ((representing 12% of respondents), 57% among African American (representing 4% of respondents), and 62% of Others (representing 4% of respondents).
see http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 1/2%.
National Popular Vote did not invent popular elections. Having election results determined by the candidate getting the most individual votes is not some scary, untested idea loaded with unintended consequences. It is a simple matter that your vote should count as much as everyone else’s.
But, susan, we are not a democracy. That was decided 225 years ago in the constitution. It is a good system. It might be confusing to the common civilian who thinks that everything in this life should be determined by popular vote. But the truth is, our founding fathers thought there was good reason to NOT have the president voted in by the masses, but rather be decided by the states.
Why are you guys so scared of change, it’s popular vote… what disadvantages does popular vote have over the electoral college?
Do the founding fathers reasons why states were represented instead of the people still hold up today? Give me a reason why a farmer in Texas should have more of a say to who is president than a farmer in Kansas?
Stop making this partisan.
Actually, have a better look at the math: Today, that farmer in Kansas has a statistical advantage over the farmer in Texas.
In my mind, the biggest argument for the status quo is this: if we go to a national popular vote, neither the Texas farmer nor the Kansas farmer will have much of a say at all. All the voting power would go to the voters in New York, LA, and all the big cities around the country. Where the votes are is where the political interests would go, and rural voters would be outta luck.
It is partisan because Democrats tend to favor this idea and Republicans tend to oppose. Why would that be? I suppose because the Dems had their ox gored in 2000 (pardon the pun).