Important win for national popular vote bill in CO Senate

by Jack Santucci // Published April 14, 2006
A BILL FOR AN ACT CONCERNING ADOPTION OF AN INTERSTATE COMPACT FOR THE ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE.

The Colorado state Senate became the first state legislative chamber to support a National Popular Vote bill in America. The legislation likely will have a final vote in that body later this month.

Since the plan was unveiled seven weeks ago, legislators in five states have introduced legislation to enter their states into the agreement to join with other states to guarantee election of the national popular vote winner.

Stay tuned!

[Download SB 06-223 in PDF]

Comments currently closed for Important win for national popular vote bill in CO Senate

  • I should add that I've cut and pasted these comments into my own posting on the subject, and cited this site. Best, J

    Posted by sargon1234, 2006-05-20 00:29:10 (7 years ago)

  • Belated greetings, um, Jack (? - for this is *my* name) -- RE "ad hominem" - that of course was not the substance of my argument - it was a passing characterization, gratuitous perhaps, but permissible in informal debate. "Two, I find it hard to believe wisdom - that is, innate intelligence - has declined among humans over the last 250 years." It isn't about intelligence. It's about precepts. These men were grounded in a classical way of thinking, and took as their mentors such thinkers as Locke. We cannot arrive at valid conclusions (true, by coincidence, but not valid through sound logic) if we operate from false premises. The current cohort of pols are precisely what I termed them: mediocrities. All generations will have them, but by dint of discipline, one might rise above one's innate limitations. "Taking wisdom in its other sense - lessons learned from life???s experiences - it probably has increased since 1787." We'll just have to disagree, on this. To imagine that TV somehow enhances one's understanding of the human condition seems naive, to me. At most, it enhances our understanding of telefictions. To imagine that the hustle and bustle of modern urban life gives one more to subtle contemplation, is wrong on the face of it. Anderson tells part, not all, of the story. To say the EC was a compromise is true. To say it is only a compromise is false. It is also one of the (non-democratic) checks and balances. "Theoretically true" - no disagreement here. "It???s not about who???s watching ads. It???s about the constituencies." False dilemma. It *is* about ads. That's what campaigns are, nowadays. The days of whistle stops are long past. TV and radio. It's also about constituencies. I'm wondering if you understood my point? I'm arguing that the electoral college is a GOOD thing. It ensures the importance of the small states. Winning Nevada or Utah is important, in a close race. As for how you're using "constituencies" - it seems to be as a promise of pork. National issues - which I take as the proper domain of a president - cross statelines, and so the constituency ought, it seems to me, to be more philosophical, than local. But I may be wrong. "The Electoral College is not a ???situation.???" Please. Pardon my ellipsis. The *deliberations* of the EC are as much a "situation" as the politics which would transpire in the House. But you could have taken it as an usage of synecdoche. Re "spoilers" - we might imagine any number of solutions to imaginary problems. My position is that the EC is not a problem at all. J

    Posted by sargon1234, 2006-05-19 19:02:47 (7 years ago)

  • I note your post, The Electoral College. Your first argument in favor of retaining the Electoral College system:

    First, the Framers of the Constitution seem to have been quite a bit wiser than the toadies and mediocrities who thrust themselves forward into public office nowadays.
    One, ad hominem is not reasoned debate. Two, I find it hard to believe wisdom - that is, innate intelligence - has declined among humans over the last 250 years. Taking wisdom in its other sense - lessons learned from life's experiences - it probably has increased since 1787. Anyway, as Congressman John Anderson put it, the FFs settled on an Electoral College because they couldn't agree otherwise. Can't make a decision? Leave it to the states. Which is what this is about - the states using their Constitutional power over the selection of Electors.
    Thus, as few as eleven states could decide the presidency; in fact, eleven votes over half the population of eleven states could decide the issue - same as now.
    Theoretically true, but you're looking at it through the Electoral College lens. Fact is, we'd have a national, popular vote. If every voter in each of those eleven states voted the same way, then you're right. But that's not likely. Candidates will need votes from all sorts of states, big and small.
    Some complain that only battleground states receive the benefit of a focused campaign. Um ??? this seems like a problem? You like all the campaign ads on TV and radio? You think they???re useful? Informative? Accurate?
    It's not about who's watching ads. It's about the constituencies. Presidential contenders have no incentive to make promises to safe states, to be responsive to their needs.
    There???s also the obvious problem, that if three candidates all make a good showing, another election would be required. That, or the unhappy solution of having a president elected with, say, 34% of the vote. If, say, two liberals lost, with 60% of the vote between them, and a conservative won with forty percent, the very purpose of the reform would have been undone ??? and you???d have a situation far more objectionable than the Electoral College.
    The Electoral College is not a "situation." Having a Presidential election decided in the House of Representatives is. True, the NPV plan is satisfied with plurality winners, meaning a national popular vote is susceptible to the spoiler effect, as with any single-winner election that does not involve a majority requirement. Instant runoff voting could solve that. But imagine a spoiler within the Electoral College itself. The decision is made by the House. Overall, though, this is about increasing the size of the electorate. More votes go into the same ballot box, in a sense. Therefore, the number of votes needed to turn an election by fraud or spoiler candidacy increases drastically. Remember what happened in Florida - a few voters spoiled the Electoral College result for one state, which threw off the result for 50 states.
    In other words, if the rules were different, the strategy to win would have been different.
    Clearly. You'd campaign to more voters in all states. That is, more voters would matter - not just the swing sliver in a battleground state.
    Posted by Jack, 2006-04-19 09:51:14 (7 years ago)

  • This is the same bonehead move they pulled in 1913 - with the 17th Amendment. There was a purpose, for a state appointed Senate. It's called "Federalism." There they go again. I write this up in one of my postings: http://forgottenprophets.blogspot.com/2006/03/electoral-college.html for any interested. Best, Jack H

    Posted by sargon1234, 2006-04-19 01:32:30 (7 years ago)