 | ||
 | ||
                                 |
|
 |
|
Counting votes
Times were tense leading up to the November showdown that year. The dominating Republican Party was still reeling from the corruption and scandals associated with outgoing President Ulysses S. Grant. Democrats, on the other hand, were still trying to lose their "bloody shirt" reputation for being the party of the Confederacy less than two decades before. Desperate for any advantage, the Democrat-dominated House of Representatives pushed to award statehood to the territory of Colorado. They had been assured by those in the know that, granted statehood, Colorado would give its three electoral votes to Democratic candidate Samuel J. Tilden. To help guarantee this development, a little note was attached to the nascent state’s constitution that allowed the legislature to choose Colorado’s three electors in 1876 without a statewide vote. Democrat bigwigs assumed Colorado’s first legislature would go Democrat, and then they wouldn’t have to deal with the bothersome whim of the Colorado electorate, which was fairly divided along party lines. They were wrong. Come election time, all hell broke loose. By a narrow margin Republicans took control of the Colorado legislature, and then dutifully gave Colorado’s three electoral votes to Republican presidential candidate Rutherford B. Hayes. While Tilden won the popular vote, 20 electoral college votes were in contention, thanks to claims of election tampering in Louisiana, South Carolina and, yes, Florida. The challenged votes were enough to stalemate the election. As tensions mounted and whispers were loosed of a second civil war, the politicians settled the problem the only way they knew how–backroom bargaining. Hayes was eventually selected to become president, but not without heavy concessions. The federal government agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South, effectively ending the original idea of Reconstruction. Southern African American’s right to vote was no longer protected by their government. Lynchings became commonplace. Jim Crow spread across the South. Some blamed Colorado for the developments. If Colorado had not been admitted to the Union–or if its populace had been allowed to vote and had voted Democrat–Tilden would have won, contested votes or not. And if Tilden had become president, many say it’s unlikely he would have been able to roll back Reconstruction to such an extent. That was the last time that Colorado, or any state, would have its electoral votes distributed by the legislature, not by the will of the voters. From that point onward, Colorado, like almost all other states, awarded all of its Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who received the most popular votes statewide. But that could soon change. A state initiative aims to change the way Colorado distributes its electoral votes starting this November. Some say the initiative would bring much-needed reform to what they call the misunderstood and seriously outdated U.S. Electoral College and prevent political imbroglios like those of 1876 and 2000. Others say the initiative would make Colorado politically insignificant or, worse, send the nation into turmoil that would make the election of 1876 look like small potatoes. Election 101 Many, if not most, Americans probably don’t realize that they never vote for the president or vice president. For these people it might come as a surprise that they are actually voting for a slate of usually unknown individuals who will get together about a month later and choose the next president. If you are among this naïve crowd (come on, we know a few of you are out there), don’t be ashamed. The U.S. presidential election can be a confusing business, thanks in large part to the Electoral College. The Electoral College was the brainchild of the Founding Fathers. (Feel free to cue the "Schoolhouse Rock" soundtrack here.) After managing to escape the tea-stained clutches of the British empire, these ambitious folks still had to deal with how to elect a leader of a new nation comprised of 13 diverse states wary of central power spread out over difficult terrain unsuitable for national campaigns–all at a time when political parties were considered downright uncouth. The Constitutional Convention turned down the idea of a direct popular vote, but not because they considered the national populous to be dangerously uneducated riffraff. Without a major flow of information between states, the Framers of the Constitution worried that the people would always vote for the "favorite son" from their own state, essentially pitting 13 potential presidents against each other. Instead the Founding Fathers decided on an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors. Each state was allowed the same number of electors as it had U.S. senators and representatives. The states were free to choose for themselves how they would select their electors, but the original idea was that the electors would be the most knowledgeable citizens who would select a president based solely on merit. As the country matured and political parties lost their unsavory reputation, the workings of the Electoral College were slightly tweaked. Eventually all states adopted a system where electors were selected by direct election. Today, in almost all states, the political party that wins the most popular votes in a state wins all of the state’s electors. Aside from an occasional "unfaithful" elector, all of these electors will then vote for their party’s chosen candidate. Notwithstanding from an occasional snafu (like when one party ran three candidates in one election and when a presidential hopeful inconveniently died between the popular election and the meeting of the Electoral College), most people say the Electoral College has been responsible for the United State’s relative stability and cohesiveness. But some people say it’s time for an Electoral College tune-up. "Many people say this system is outdated, archaic and in need of reform," says Sen. Ron Tupa, D-Boulder, who is also a high school government teacher. Critics like Tupa say the system might have been appropriate when powdered wigs were hip, but today it’s a needlessly complicated political anachronism. For one thing, the system allows for the possibility of a candidate not winning an absolute majority of popular votes but still becoming president, as it happened in 1876 and 2000. And then there’s the fact that electoral votes are distributed in such a way that electors tend to over-represent voters in small, rural states. Furthermore, the "winner-takes-all" electoral system in place in almost all states means that even if a candidate receives 49.9 percent of a state’s popular votes, she won’t get any of that state’s electors. Not only does that make it very difficult for third-party candidates to break into the election, but also encourages major-party candidates to focus their campaign time on states where the population is pretty evenly split between parties. "The problem is that we do have an electoral system where states that are not obviously in play do get kind of written off. So you don’t see presidential candidates showing up in states where they cannot get the majority," says Rutt Bridges, CEO of the Bighorn Center for Public Policy in Denver. "You end up with this narrow group of battleground states, and it is within those states where elections get decided." One of the biggest complaints of the winner-take-all Electoral College system is the idea of the "wasted vote." Take the example of Jerry Kopel. Kopel is a former Colorado legislator, a long-time Denver journalist and faithful Colorado voter since 1952. But as a Democrat in a heavily Republican state, he feels his vote for president has only counted twice: when Lyndon Johnson won Colorado’s electoral votes in 1964 and when Bill Clinton won Colorado’s votes in 1992. In every other election, Kopel feels that his vote has not been reflected, since all of the state’s electoral votes went to the Republican candidate. "I feel disenfranchised by the winner-takes-all system," says Kopel. "And I think it’s time for my vote to count." Counting every vote Enter Rick Ridder. While Ridder describes himself as, "Just a quiet guy," in the world of politics he’s anything but. A Denver political consultant, Ridder has worked for the likes of Adlai Stevenson, Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, Ralph Nader, Gary Hart, Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Howard Dean. But in the November election Ridder says he’s working not for a particular candidate, but for the betterment of the entire Colorado electorate. He’s doing so as the main organizer behind the Colorado Electoral College Reform Initiative (CECRI). If CECRI gets on the November ballot in Colorado and passes, Colorado’s electoral votes would no longer be based on a winner-take-all system. Instead, the number of electoral votes a candidate is awarded will be proportional to percentage of popular vote each candidate receives. So if George W. Bush wins 55 percent of Colorado’s popular vote and John Kerry 45 percent, Bush would win five of Colorado’s nine electoral votes, with the other four going to Kerry. "This is ultimately about one person, one vote," says Ridder. "If this is enacted, it will be the truest representation of the popular vote of the country. And barring a constitutional amendment, what Colorado would have would be the most democratic [voting] system in the country." In other words, people like Jerry Kopel would no longer feel disenfranchised, since even if Republicans win a majority of the popular vote in Colorado, Democrats would still be represented by part of Colorado’s electors. Furthermore, Ridder notes that CECRI would give Colorado more influence in the presidential election. Often Democratic candidates write off Colorado as a sure-fire Republican state and spend little time listening to the concerns of its voters. Under this new system Ridder believes all the candidates would fight for every vote in Colorado. CECRI needs 67,799 signatures by Aug. 2 to get on the ballot. Ridder estimates his campaign has already collected about 70,000 signatures and hopes to gather at least 100,000 to ensure there’s enough verifiable signatures. If the initiative passes on Nov. 2, it would go in effect for this election. Colorado would not be the first state to cast off the "winner-take-all" system. Maine abandoned the system in 1969, and Nebraska did the same in 1991 in favor of a "congressional district" system. Under this system, the state awards two electors to the candidate who wins statewide and then allocates the remaining electors to the winner in each congressional district. Ridder says CECRI takes Maine and Nebraska’s system to the next level. "It takes it a little step further," says Ridder. "It is a better step, because it is a reflection of the state overall." Under the congressional-district system, voters who are part of the minority party in a district might still feel disenfranchised, says Ridder. There are several reasons why Colorado was chosen for this initiative, says Ridder. "Colorado has a history of election reform," he says, pointing to the fact that Colorado was the first state to allow women to vote and the one of the first to pass a sunshine law requiring the public disclosure of financial interests by elected officials. (Wyoming gave women the vote while still a territory, ahead of Colorado.) Furthermore, the idea of Electoral College reform is not new to Colorado. In 2001, Tupa tried unsuccessfully to change Colorado’s electoral system to that adopted by Maine and Nebraska. "[CECRI] would be even more progressive and Democratic than I had proposed," says Tupa, who supports CECRI. Ridder also notes the broad referendum powers Colorado allows its citizens provides Coloradans with a legal way to reform their electoral vote system. Under the U.S. Constitution, state legislatures get to choose the method they use to appoint electors. The Supreme Court has interpreted "legislature" to mean any body that makes laws. And since Coloradans can enact laws through the state’s initiative process, they can theoretically be considered part of the legislature–and therefore able to decide for themselves how their electoral votes are divided. "I think it’s really important for Coloradans to be on the forefront of this debate," says Ridder. "I think Colorado is the place to start." Electoral emasculation Not everyone agrees Colorado should be the place to toy with the Electoral College system. "It’s a terrible idea," says Ted Halaby, state Republican chairman. "It emasculates any leverage or influence Colorado has on the presidential election." Halaby believes a proportional electoral vote system would make Colorado less attractive to candidates because it would make it next to impossible for a candidate to win all nine of the state’s electoral votes. Since most presidential elections are fairly close in Colorado, it would also mean that the winner would often only receive one more electoral vote than the loser–a scenario that Halaby believes would hardly make Colorado a major stop on the campaign trail. Others question whether the Electoral College really needs to be reformed at all. "I guess the main thing I would say is that these things should not be fiddled with lightly. Political systems are very fragile," says Robert Nagel, a constitutional law professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder. "There are some non-obvious advantages to winner-take-all systems. One is they tend to reduce political fragmentation and produce more incentives for opposing parties to reach out to each other." Nagel and others point out that the genius of the Electoral College system is that it requires successful presidential candidates to pursue a diverse support base and encourages political stability, all the while balancing the needs of both large and small states. The two-party structure fostered by the winner-take-all system is a good thing, these people say, since it keeps numerous fringe parties from balkanizing the country. And if the Electoral College does need reform, CECRI opponents wonder why these so-called reformers are focusing only on Colorado, as opposed to pushing for a U.S. Constitutional amendment that would revise the system nationwide. Some skeptics say this is because CECRI is a partisan move in non-partisan clothing, a short-sighted maneuvering that could render Colorado politically impotent and shake the core structure of the electoral system to score a few measly votes for the Democrats in the Republican stronghold of Colorado. "Very clever on behalf of the Democrats to use this kind of subterfuge," says Halaby. Some say that Ridder’s long tradition of working for Democratic politicians lends credence to these theories. These attacks have been exacerbated by reports that CECRI has so far received much of its funding and support from a California-based group called People’s Choice for President. Halaby believes the reason People’s Choice for President isn’t pushing this initiative in its home state is because such a proportional electoral system would dilute California’s strong Democratic voting block. "I would certainly like [People’s Choice for President] to do it in California," says Halaby. "It would be a huge boon to the Republicans." But CECRI supporters say they aren’t working for Kerry. In fact, they throw claims of partisan politics right back at their critics–it’s no coincidence, they say, that those complaining the loudest about CECRI are Republicans. "The Republicans want to take Colorado for granted. If this passes they will no longer be able to do that," says Tupa. Twist of fate There’s one development that’s managed to simultaneously throw wrenches into the claim that CECRI is just Democratic election ploy and the rebuttal that CECRI opposition is just Republican greed: The Kerry campaign doesn’t want CECRI to pass. While Bush campaign spokesman Danny Diaz delicately skirts all questions about whether or not his boss supports CECRI, Kerry Colorado Communications Director Steve Haro is far less ambiguous. "It’s my belief that if you are going to have a system where electoral votes are doled out proportionally, it’s gotta be nationwide," he says. "To do anything else I believe would make a state’s electoral votes less effective." Has Kerry gone mad? Shouldn’t he want any votes he could get in Colorado? Before you buy this tall drink of water a one-way ticket to the funny farm, you’d better take a look at the latest polls. In late June, Kerry was only trailing Bush in Colorado by five points–and many are saying this could lead to a freakish phenomenon, right up there with extraterrestrials and Bigfoot, where Colorado actually votes for a Democratic president. Some pollsters suggest Colorado is slowly moving away from the GOP. Others say a Democratic win in Colorado in 2004 would be an aberration, where skepticism of the current administration crosses party lines. For whatever the reason, Kerry and his supporters believe they can win Colorado come November–and they don’t want to be playing for chump change. Just like their Republican rivals, they want all nine electoral votes. "Before when nobody thought Kerry would be in play in Colorado, people thought this was a move by his camp," says Bridges at the Bighorn Center for Public Policy. "Now that Kerry could be in play, it’s possible the original intent of the people who brought this forward may be lost." But Ridder, for one, says CECRI isn’t about who wins the 2004 election at all–it’s about how the winner is decided. Whether they’re Republican or Democrat, Ridder says all those who are considering CECRI solely in relation to who’s the next resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. are missing the main point of the initiative. "That is putting party partisanship above the rights of the electorate," says Ridder. "I don’t know if it benefits a singular party. It simply benefits the voters, because it ultimately makes their vote more valuable. Perhaps people should be asking, which is more valuable, a visit by a presidential candidate or the right to have every vote count." Passion plays The idea of a new type of electoral system will likely keep political web bloggers up all night analyzing how such a system could shape the future landscape of American politics. To be sure, the ramifications of CECRI for the country’s electoral system are intriguing. For example, if Colorado had passed CECRI in 2000, Gore would have netted some of the state’s electoral votes and would be president today. But let’s say a Democratic stronghold like California had a proportional electoral vote system in 2000–then Bush clearly would have been the winner. Just like in the wild times of 1876, it seems like the smallest electoral vote adjustment can make all the difference. And what would be the long-term effects of CECRI, especially if other states follow Colorado’s lead? It’s hard to say. Some say it would lead to a golden age of political campaigns, where everyone would feel the power of their franchise, as presidential hopefuls would have to appeal to the common will of the people without regard to petty concerns like swing states. Others say it would be the death of delicate American system of checks and balances, where numerous independent parties would crowd the political spectrum and savvy campaigners could capture the White House by appealing just to the major metropolitan areas and ignoring the vast geographic majority of the country. But then again, maybe all this theorizing could just be mental masturbation. After all, take a look at Maine and Nebraska, who’ve been bucking the Electoral College trend for years. So far neither state has ever split its electoral votes, and local political experts say their congressional-district electoral vote systems have failed to make their states any more or less important on the campaign trail. "The practical consequence of Nebraska’s change is absolutely zero," says Dr. John Hibbing, professor of political science at the University of Nebraska, who notes that Nebraska has always leaned to far too the right for Democrats to even win a single district. The same goes for Maine, says Christian Potholm, a government professor at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine. "Other than [a few aberrations] I have not in 30 years seen that proportional element really affect the way presidential campaigns are conducted in the state of Maine," he says, noting that any political clout his state does have comes from its proximity to New Hampshire. CECRI, of course, is much more likely to result in a divided electoral vote in Colorado. But how much impact would that really have? Who’s to say that the biggest change wouldn’t just be how Colorado is colored on presidential election maps. Would it be half blue for Democrats, and half red for Republicans? Would it be cross-hatched? Would it be purple? "I don’t know how much impact [CECRI] is going to have," admits Bridges. "There has been a lot of passion on both sides on this issue. It’s represented as either being electoral nirvana or electoral Armageddon. I doubt it is going to be either. But such is the passion of politicians." To find out more about the Colorado Electoral College Reform Initiative, contact Rick Ridder at rick@ridder-braden.com or at 303-832-2444. Respond: letters@boulderweekly.com |
It was an election to remember: contested electoral votes, cries of corruption in Florida, shadowy political dealings, a triumph of a president who lost the popular vote and a resulting national upheaval that lasted for years. No, this is not a reference to the presidential selection of 2000. For this history lesson, set the Wayback Machine to the heady days of 1876, when Colorado’s presidential vote–or lack thereof–helped alter the course of American history.
