Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Digg
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
Look out folks, the state of Colorado just opened Pandora’s box. That’s right. If you liked the election debacle that took place in Florida four years ago, then you’re going to be doing cartwheels over Colorado in 2004.
In case you missed it, the state of Colorado, in hopes of enraging republicans and democrats across our fine nation, has implanted a statewide initiative that would rewrite the rules for apportioning out Colorado’s nine electoral votes. The proposed system would replace a winner-take all way approach and divide the state’s electoral votes proportionally, based on each candidate’s share of the popular vote. The initiative which is Amendment 36 would take effect immediately.
So there you go. Another five weeks until we are part of our own nation-wide sequel. Let’s call it “The 2000 Election: Redux” or better yet, “Revenge of the Angry Citizens.” There are some lines you never want to cross again, and this is one of them. Adding more excitement to the pot is that this little initiative, in a recent poll, is finding more backing than loathing. Come on Colorado, you’ve got to be kidding me. You’re directing this country into a replay of 2000, minus a guest appearance by the hanging chads. The last thing this important election needs is a disaster like we had four years ago. Let’s look at what would happen if this initiative was to actually go through.
With President Bush holding a narrow lead in the Colorado polls, it appears that if the Democrat-inspired amendment passes, the winner would get five electoral votes, while the loser would be rewarded with four of their own. No matter what political affiliation you are siding with come Nov. 2, you’ve got to be hoping for a cleaner election then what occurred in 2000. And if Amendment 36 goes through, the Centennial State would be messier than the University of Vermont after a Phish concert.
Amendment 36 would not only afflict its damage on Colorado, it would most likely inspire party officials in several other states, as well. The GOP would follow the Democrats in Denver and gun for traditionally big Democratic states, like California, hoping to spice things up a bit. That’s not all, there is word that those always perceptive Democrats are trying to change the system in heavily Republican states like Texas.
It’s as if Colorado had looked at their current system and screamed “Jenga,” pulling the system apart to be different. All but two states have a winner-take-all system. Congratulations Colorado, you’re the one state that couldn’t decide to step out of the electoral closet or not.
It’s not to say that an initiative like this is a first of any kind. Two others states have seen the electoral system fiddled with in the past: Maine in 1969 and Nebraska in 1992. And there will be those who say the change is appealing necessity. They will say it makes your vote and gives the single voter a sense of empowerment. However, I respond to that, “What about the victor?” Shouldn’t the victor earn what he has truly won? More importantly, dividing the states would diminish the state’s clout in elections. It would also mean that opposing states would attract more attention because they have more importance, in theory, because they have more votes. Colorado would struggle to compete for interest and attention from politicians.
However, I do find it interesting that this initiative was brought upon by Democrats in a state that has been carried by Republicans for the past 12 years. Only once in the past nine presidential contests has a Democrat carried Colorado, that being Bill Clinton in 1992. Personally, I find this initiative to be a drastic ploy by Democrats to grasp at an election that is quickly slipping through their finger tips. I have a strange feeling that Al Gore and his thugs are mettling in some dark alley in the Mile High city. But that’s just a little GOP nightmare of mine.
Matt Conyers is sophmore journalism major.
