Mourning the loss of the Electoral College
Bad day for the Constitution in Colorado.
The Electoral College is not officially dead — yet. But it will be shortly. HB 1299, which changes how Colorado awards its 9 electoral votes in the presidential election, passed out of the Senate State, Military and Veterans Affairs along a party line vote. It’s on to the whole Senate where it probably will pass. The insane legislation forces Colorado into a compact of states that throws its support behind the winner of the national popular vote regardless of the will of Colorado voters. Coloradans can just watch as New York and California annoint the next president.
Mark Grueskin and Ted Trimpa, two lawyer/lobbyists intimately involved with the infamous Colorado Democracy Alliance, testified in favor of HB 1299. Grueskin was the first to testify. When Chairwoman Suzanne Williams asked if there were any questions for Grueskin, Senator Bob Bacon (D-Fort Collins) was almost giddy in agreement, proudly proclaiming he is persuaded to support it. He didn’t have a question — just an opinion. It was like a judge telling everyone the outcome of the trial after hearing only one witness. Bacon couldn’t get enough of Grueskin, smiling and nodding in agreement with every word Grueskin uttered.
Three citizens (including me) and two professors testified against HB 1299. University of Denver Law Professor Robert Hardaway made a compelling case for the law of unintended consequences. He predicted that this compact will result a plethora of lawsuits that will make Florida look like a student council election. But committee members had their minds made up already.
When I testified, Bacon lectured me about the nearly 700,000 Coloradans that voted no on Amendment 36 that I cited during my testimony. Chairwoman Williams didn’t let me respond. I nearly choked on the blood as I bit a hole through my tongue.
Senators Suzanne Williams, Betty Boyd and Bob Bacon voted to destroy the Electoral College. Senator David Schultheis voted to save it.
The nightmare that is the 2009 legislative session can’t end soon enough.
March 26th, 2009 at 8:27 am
I know the feeling on not being able to responed to the great leaders we have elected. They never let the little guy have a voice and how dare you speak to them.
The time is coming when we will speak with a outraged voice and they will have to listen.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
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.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law. The U.S. Constitution gives “exclusive” and “plenary” control to the states over the appointment of presidential electors.
Historically, virtually all of the previous major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation’s first election in 1789. However, nowadays, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.
In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state’s electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all rule is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.
In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state .
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.
What the current U.S. Constitution says is “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
March 26th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
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.
March 26th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
[...] at home, Senator Bob Bacon (Colorado) is actually trying to get rid of our Colorado Electoral College votes — he seems to think it [...]
June 16th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
[...] Bob Bacon lectured Amy when she took time off work to testify against HB 1299, the legislation to destroy the Electoral College. At the same time Bacon nearly gave attorney/lobbyist Mark Grueskin a standing [...]