I'm callin' it...

[b-rock]

Interesting, I stand corrected, thanks.

[chelle]

I don't think CO splitting their electoral votes, if the initiative passes, will be all that controversial. I thought there was something more going on in the state, like with voter fraud or the religious angle.

 

I find the idea of proportionality to be interesting, as it would more accurately mirror the poular vote. And it would likely allow 3rd party candidates to have more impact on the election process. Didn't Ross Perot get 22% of the popular vote in 1992, but ZERO electoral votes.

[slothrop]

Hmm... proportionally dividing the electors makes it more democratic, while letting the smaller states keep the same number of electors. Sounds like a decent compromise between electing the president by popular vote and the usual electoral college system.

[Squid]

Fairweather, I'll lay money on Kerry. He'll win with 279 electoral votes (New England, Mid-Atlantic as south ad MD, the Rust Belt,and the West Coast minus AK). Bush takes the South (including FL) and the Rockies.

[selkirk]

So who get Idaho and Wyoming? They aren't really rockies? Oh wait a minute do they make a difference at all?

[Fairweather]

I don't think CO splitting their electoral votes, if the initiative passes, will be all that controversial. I thought there was something more going on in the state, like with voter fraud or the religious angle.

 

I find the idea of proportionality to be interesting, as it would more accurately mirror the poular vote. And it would likely allow 3rd party candidates to have more impact on the election process. Didn't Ross Perot get 22% of the popular vote in 1992, but ZERO electoral votes.

 

The problem lies in that the CO state constitution specifically calls for the legislature to ammend voting procedures and electoral allotment. I'm all for the idea...especially here in WASHINGTON STATE where the Seattle elite drive the states 11 votes into the Dem column....but attempting to change the rules at the end of the game is a typical left/lib move.

[chelle]

Well Fairweather, I guess the legislature in CO will have a decision to make about whether to represent their consitutents if the initiative passes.

 

I'm not sure I understand what your point is about WA state and the elite in Seattle calling the election here. Anyone eligible to vote and does so decides how the electoral votes here are distributed. Just because the state's electoral votes will likely go to Kerry due to him winning our state's popular vote, does not mean there is some liberal conspiracy...nor are democrats changing the rules.

[Fairweather]

Get real, Michelle. You know I was talking about late-changing the rules in CO. My point about this state's (WA) distribution only relates to your probable reluctance to give up the Democratic electoral monopoly here and your likely hypocricy therein. I would support this idea here because a large geographic portion of this state's population goes unheard in presidential elections. I believe only four out of thirty seven(?) counties go Dem...but that's enough to pull it. (King, Thurston, Island, Whatcom)

[AlpineK]

I'm curious what you mean by late changing of the rules Fairweather.

 

People are voting on a proposal that won't actually take place until a future election (also it may have to pass some legal hurdles)

 

I also don't see where WA is any different from a number of other states. I bet you could find quite a few states where there is a similar geographic split.

 

Are you grumpy because your vote for president may not count?

[Dave_Schuldt]

The best thing to do with Foulwether is ignore him.

[AlpineK]

I don't agree with that at all Dave.

[cj001f]

Given the disproportionately large amount of power small states wield in the Senate (South Dakota and Alaska being prime examples) it's about time for their outsized say in the Presidential race to be eliminated.

[Mal_Con]

I like the CO proposal as it would eliminate most of the problems with the EC without a Constitutional Amendment. It would eliminate the problems 0f 2k FL (probably also 2004 FL too) because it would not be so profitable to game the system. It would also give 3rd parties a chance. On the down side it could lead to coalition governments.

[Fairweather]

I'm curious what you mean by late changing of the rules Fairweather.

 

People are voting on a proposal that won't actually take place until a future election (also it may have to pass some legal hurdles)

 

 

Not true. This proposal would take effect immediately and would apply to this election. This is why there is so much concern about Colorado post-election lawsuits.

[AlpineK]

hmmm. I find it hard to believe you could vote on something that would retroactivly affect a law. I mean they would have to figure out whether the measure passed before they could assign electoral votes.

[chelle]

That's how the initiative is written, K. That it would effect how the votes are allocated starting in the 2004 election. The electoral college votes well after the general election, so they'd know whether the initiative passed. At least theoretically.

[Skeezix]

I believe only four out of thirty seven(?) counties go Dem...but that's enough to pull it. (King, Thurston, Island, Whatcom)

Thing is, Fairweather, counties don't vote --people do, and those counties are where the people live. (The enlightened people, anyway...)

[Fairweather]

...enlightened like you, I suppose. Thankyou....for making my case.

[chelle]

I don't think CO splitting their electoral votes, if the initiative passes, will be all that controversial. I thought there was something more going on in the state, like with voter fraud or the religious angle.

 

I find the idea of proportionality to be interesting, as it would more accurately mirror the poular vote. And it would likely allow 3rd party candidates to have more impact on the election process. Didn't Ross Perot get 22% of the popular vote in 1992, but ZERO electoral votes.

 

The problem lies in that the CO state constitution specifically calls for the legislature to ammend voting procedures and electoral allotment. I'm all for the idea...especially here in WASHINGTON STATE where the Seattle elite drive the states 11 votes into the Dem column....but attempting to change the rules at the end of the game is a typical left/lib move.

 

I am real Fairweather! Give me a f'ing break! Look at how you wrote the above and tell me that it is not realistic to interpret what you wrote about liberals, as pertaining to WA. Be clear about how you communicate or at least try to clarify it when I ask a question instead of telling me to get real.

 

So from this post:

Get real, Michelle. You know I was talking about late-changing the rules in CO. My point about this state's (WA) distribution only relates to your probable reluctance to give up the Democratic electoral monopoly here and your likely hypocricy therein. I would support this idea here because a large geographic portion of this state's population goes unheard in presidential elections. I believe only four out of thirty seven(?) counties go Dem...but that's enough to pull it. (King, Thurston, Island, Whatcom)

 

I assume that you prefer the Maine system of electoral votes because you think WA would allocate some of the votes to a republican candidate. That might be more fair. But under the current system, the majority vote calls the shots. It is not my fault that west of the cascades many counties with concentrated population vote democratic. So you get REAL or

[Fairweather]

Get a grip, Michelle. You do seem to have a problem with comprehension when faced with unfamiliar ideals. Whether this is intentional, or some sort of personality defect I am as yet unsure. Our past conversation about "moderators" and Tim Russert comes to mind. Same strategy. I've seen this before...some call it playing dumb.

 

Hey! did they take away your moderator badge?

[chelle]

You know what Fairweather. I enjoy discussing politics and pride myself on being openminded. Sparing with you is not fun because you are unable to look at anything objectively. You are now on ignore. Adios, you really can act like a jack ass. When you can't make a point in the discussion you just attack your opponent. No suprise. It's how your idol, Mr. Shrub operates. When I have made a mistake, I have admitted it. See above.

And I have never been a moderator of Spray. Please pay attention next time.

[Fairweather]

I won't reply...because you're ignoring me.

[Squid]

I would support this idea here because a large geographic portion of this state's population goes unheard in presidential elections.

 

Uh, yeah, like all those people in WA and throughout the US who voted for Gore and got handed the monkey-boy instead?

I'm all for direct representation!!

 

[foraker]

What's with the left/lib slur Fairweather? Gerrymandering of one form or another has a long and grand history on both sides of the aisle.

[Fairweather]

 

So you support the EC-proportion idea in predominantly Republican Colorado, but not here in Democratic WA?

 

If you're not nicer to me, I'm going to.....IGNORE you!