Challenge to Electoral College In Colorado Could Have Big Impact

 

By JOHN HARWOOD  9/13/04

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 pol1tical 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 withstood 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 AI 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. or. 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 in  court Colorado

 

 

If Democrats challenge Colorado’s nine votes, can they still hold onto their 55 in California?

-­

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 financial backer and denies any ties to the Kerry camp.

To be sure, it's possible that the amendment could actually harm Mr. Ker­ry's presidential prospects, since if he ends up carrying Colorado it would assure. that Mr. Bush receives some elec. tortal  votes from the state. But the Kerry campaign's decision last week to cut back TV advertising in Colorado suggests that his strategists don't expect that.

In any case, the Republican governor says, "I think we'll be able to defeat it" with an aggressive opposition campaign.

Mr. Owens has more incentive to fight back than mere. desire to boost Mr. Bush, He is pondering a 2008 bid for the presi­dency of his own. That means the electoral votes he's trying to save could be the foundation of his own national base.

Republicans are likely to try copycat moves on Democratic turf elsewhere. "If they can mess with our nine electoral votes, the next question is can they defend their 55 in California," Mr. Owens says.

Some Republicans had been eyeing similar efforts even before the Colorado drive. Grover Norquist, a conservative activist in Washington, says he suggested to no avail that Democratic-leaning New Jersey and Pennsylvania enact proportional allocation a few years back, when both state governments were under Republican control.

Though partisan stalemate in state capitals could block such changes legisla­tively, Mr. Norquist predicts that use of the amendment process could help alter electoral-vote allocations in a half-dozen states within a few years. While Democrats might look next to Ohio, he says, top Republican targets, aside from California, would be Washington and Oregon.

Different methods of proportional   allocation could produce widely varying partisan results. An allocation tied to the popular vote would have helped Mr. Gore, because he received a half-million more ballots nationwide than did Mr. Bush. But had the entire country been operating under the Maine and Nebraska system, Mr. Bush's electoral-vote total would have swelled to 298 from 271 since he carried a solid majority of the nation's Congressional districts.