alex chiang: web 6.0

Amendment 36 is perhaps the most interesting issue raised for Colorado this election year, and unfortunately, I think it will be defeated. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves here. The amendment proposes to change the way that Colorado’s electoral college votes are allocated. Instead of the traditional winner takes all, the votes would instead be allocated proportionally. So, for instance, if Bush gets 51% of the vote in Colorado and Kerry gets 49% (and we ignore the 3rd party candidates for now), Colorado’s 9 electoral college votes would be allocated 5 for Bush and 4 for Kerry. The consitution is definitely the place for this sort of rule, since it attempts to redefine how our state works and not what it should do.

Most of the editorials I’ve been reading have been advocating that we vote this amendment down. The common argument goes:

Colorado will likely become the least influential state in presidential elections because our current nine electoral votes will almost always be split 5-4. By awarding nine electoral votes to the winner, the current system encourages candidates to campaign in the state on issues of importance to Coloradoans.

Excuse me, but this is not a compelling argument. What they are really saying here is that we won’t get our fair share of Congressional pork. So be it, says I. Relevance in the fight for pork isn’t exactly my idea of an ideal democratic society. We should be striving for something better than that.

Taking a look at how Colorado has voted since 1980, only once did it go to a Democratic candidate (Clinton in 1992 vs. Bush the elder). And yet, after the Regan years, the biggest margin was in 2000, when Bush the younger won the state, 51% to 42% over Gore, for an 9% difference. The other margins were 2% victory, 4% victory, and 8% victory. Suffice to say, although Colorado has gone to the Republicans in most recent elections, there is a sizable population of Democrats (and independents).

With the current system, almost half of the constituency in this state does not get represented in the national vote. Were we to pass Amendment 36, that constituency gets a voice all of a sudden. Please explain to me how that is worse than the current situation?

The other compelling aspect about Amendment 36 is that it gives the 3rd party candidates a reason to campaign here, as they would stand a chance to pick up an electoral vote or two. The benefit of this is not so much that a 3rd party candidate would actually win the Presidency, but more that he or she would bring a 3rd opinion to the national race, and help break up the hegemony of our two-party system today. A 3rd party candidate can raise issues that aren’t important enough for the major parties to base their campaigns on, but are important issues nonetheless. This would force the major party candidates to do more than just pay some lip service to the issue.

I know of few people in this election who are actually happy with either Bush or Kerry as candidates. Rather, the attitude seems to be “pick the lesser of two evils.” Again, this is not what I think of when I think of the society we should be aiming for. As citizens, we ought to be voting for a candidate rather than against a candidate.

Unfortunately, I predict people are scared of changing a system they don’t even understand in the first place. I’m still going to vote “yes” for Amendment 36 though.