September 13, 2004
Challenge to Electoral College In Colorado Could Have Big Impact
By JOHN HARWOOD
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
While Colorado leans toward the Republicans, Democrats are hoping to
grab some of the state's nine electoral votes anyway, in a tactical
strike that could lead to broader changes in America's system of
picking presidents.
Rick Ridder, a Denver-based political consultant who once managed
Howard Dean's campaign for the 2004 Democratic nomination, is pushing
an initiative to amend the state's constitution in the November
general election and scrap the winner-take-all allocation of electoral
votes practiced by 48 states. Instead, the state's votes would be
divided in proportion to the popular vote, which would almost
certainly assure Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry of at least four of
them.

September 13, 2004
Challenge to Electoral College In Colorado Could Have Big
Impact
By JOHN HARWOOD
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
While Colorado leans toward the Republicans, Democrats are
hoping to grab some of the state's nine electoral votes
anyway, in a tactical strike that could lead to broader
changes in America's system of
picking presidents.
Rick Ridder, a Denver-based political consultant who once
managed
Howard Dean's campaign for the 2004 Democratic nomination,
is pushing
an initiative to amend the state's constitution in the
November
general election and scrap the winner-take-all allocation
of electoral votes practiced by 48 states. Instead, the
state's votes would be divided in proportion to the popular
vote, which would almost
certainly assure Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry of at least
four of
them.
Republicans are scrambling to defeat the measure on the
Nov. 2 ballot, but many acknowledge that its "one man, one
vote" slogan enters the election homestretch with a strong
edge in public opinion. "Their argument sounds fair," says
Republican Gov. Bill Owens, now embarked
on a frenetic drive to raise funds in opposition.
If voters approve the measure, and it withstands court
challenge, the reverberations could reach well beyond the
2004 campaign. Analysts in both parties expect a change in
Colorado would spur similar moves elsewhere and make the
Electoral College system itself once again a battlefield in
the war between Republicans and Democrats for control
of a narrowly divided nation.
Such a change nationwide would dramatically alter
presidential
campaigns by giving candidates new incentives to compete in
vote-rich states that now are safely in the hands of the
opposition. Republicans would spend far more time in states
like California and New York that lean toward the
Democrats, while Democrats would stump harder in
Texas.
Under the current system, "one third of the people in the
country
aren't hearing from the candidates," says Mark Gersh, who
helps Democratic candidates target people who might vote
for them.
The Electoral College was designed by the Founding Fathers
to place a buffer between popular sentiment and the
selection of a chief
executive. It awards each state the number of electoral
votes that corresponds to its number of seats in the House
of Representatives
plus two more, the latter an effort to augment the power of
small
states the way the composition of the U.S. Senate does.
By requiring presidential aspirants to achieve a majority
of electoral votes awarded by states, the founders
believed, they would force candidates to amass a broad
coalition and thus stitch together the
young nation.
The 2000 election, which gave George W. Bush an electoral
majority
even as Americans cast more ballots for Al Gore, revived the
off-and-on drive to scrap the Electoral College as
antiquated in favor of direct election by the popular vote.
Even before the Bush-Gore battle, polls had repeatedly
shown that a majority of Americans favor scrapping the
Electoral College in favor of popular-vote elections.
But because that would require a federal constitutional
amendment, a dauntingly difficult prospect, calls to do so
from the likes of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton so far have
gone nowhere.
Each state, however, retains the right to allocate its own
electoral votes, so no federal constitutional amendment is
required for any
single state to change its system. That's what Colorado
Democrats seek to do through the amendment, which has been
drafted to apply to the 2004 presidential contest as well
as future campaigns. There has been
no public polling on support for the amendment, but private
polling conducted by both sides shows the initiative
started with support in
the range of 60%.
Two states have changed their systems in recent decades.
Maine, in 1969, and Nebraska, in 1992, adopted proportional
systems awarding two electoral votes to the statewide
winner and one to the winner of each Congressional district.
Those changes have had no electoral consequence in either
state,
because the statewide winner has carried all Congressional
districts
in each election after the system was changed. But the
Colorado
proposal would have an immediate impact, because statewide
popular
votes would assure the Democratic ticket of electoral votes
that otherwise would be difficult to win. Even while losing
the state in 2000 and 1996, Democratic nominees have both
times attracted more than 40% of the state popular vote.
In the bitter aftermath of the 2000 election -- just the
fourth in
U.S. history that elected the popular vote loser --
Colorado Democrats pushed through the state Senate
legislation to award electoral votes
to the winner of each congressional district. The proposal
died in a state House controlled by Republicans, who were
confident that Mr. Bush's easy sweep of Colorado's
electoral votes in 2000 would be repeated in 2004. This
time the bounty would be richer, as the nationwide
reapportionment of Congressional districts pushed the
state's total electoral votes to nine from eight.
But last month an amendment drive dubbed "Make Your Vote
Count" moved the Democrats' proportional allocation
campaign forward. The state's nine electoral votes would be
divided in proportion to each
candidate's share of the popular vote; one ninth of the
total, or
about 11.1%, would be worth one elector. Rounding would
occur when candidates' vote totals fall short of the amount
needed for an additional elector; it would go to the
candidate closest to receiving the next one-ninth of the
popular vote. Proponents easily exceeded the 67,829
petition signatures needed to gain a spot on the November
ballot.
"People just jump at it," says Mr. Ridder, the Denver-based
political consultant. He says backers, led by a well-to-do
Californian named
Jorge Klor de Alva, are prepared to spend $1 million toward
the
campaign for passage. Implemented broadly, Mr. Ridder
argues, the idea could salve partisan wounds by giving
Republicans new incentive to campaign in Democratic-leaning
states, and vice versa.
Mr. Owens, the Republican governor, says he's "flexible" on
Electoral College overhaul nationally. But if Colorado
moves alone to
proportional allocation, he insists, it would in effect
make the state less powerful by reducing the stakes of
presidential competition here
to the one or two electoral votes that could change hands
depending on the popular-vote results. Mr. Owens says that
would dramatically
reduce the incentive for presidential candidates to court
Colorado, leaving the state vulnerable later when the
occupant of the White
House weighs decisions on matters such as closing military
bases or storing nuclear waste.
Mr. Owens notes that Mr. Klor de Alva is linked through an
associate
to anti-Bush billionaire George Soros, and says, "I have no
doubt"
that persons close to the Kerry campaign are involved in
the measure. Mr. Ridder says Mr. Soros isn't a f

September 13, 2004

Challenge to Electoral College In Colorado Could Have Big Impact
By JOHN HARWOOD
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
While Colorado leans toward the Republicans, Democrats are hoping to
grab some of the state's nine electoral votes anyway, in a tactical
strike that could lead to broader changes in America's system of
picking presidents.

... Instead, the state's votes would be divided in proportion to the
popular vote, which would almost certainly assure Massachusetts
Sen. John Kerry of at least four of them...