A Response to a Reader
In response to a reader’s comment, regarding Colorado's Amendment 36, I’m attempting to outline a “non-partisan” statement regarding why it should not be supported. Previously discussed here and here.
Anne wonders, what do we really lose by supporting Amendment 36, aside from battleground status?
First, we would certainly lose the significance of 9 votes in exchange for one, as we would send a 5 – 4 split to the Electoral College. While this may not be a compelling argument for some, for others, it is enough.
Second, we would lose one of the most significant aspects of our heritage as a federal republic. As a federal republic, we elect a President not as a majority of citizens, but as a majority of electors representing the states. No argument for a “pure” democracy is seriously being made by Amendment 36, only an argument to weaken Colorado’s role in the republic. Voting for it because one believes it to be a more democratic and modern form for electing the President would only be valid if all the states were participating.
Third, your comment says you are seeking to understand without the partisan “crap” associated with the issue. The bi-partisan support for defeating Amendment 36 is shown in the list of newspapers that have stated their position against the Amendment. They include: The Denver Post, The Rocky Mountain News, The Pueblo Chieftain, The Boulder Daily Camera, The Steamboat Pilot, and The Greeley Tribune, as well as many national papers, and both of Colorado's candidates for the Senate.
So in summary, it is a bad idea, without regard for this year’s political ramifications. Anne, I hope that helps.
