The Next Best Thing

I'm generally opposed to the use of ballot initiatives. When it comes to managing state finances I think constitutional strait jackets are no substitute for elected representatives actually doing their jobs. (Colorado and California, as just two examples, illustrate how easy it is for voters to cast themselves into a fiscal ditch through well meaning but uneducated votes for ill-conceived ballot measures.)

And though I recognize that referendums may offer the only genuine hope for certain reform measures, I remain naively optimistic that elected representatives could, if they really wanted to, tackle some of the vexing problems that continue to get passed off to voters.

Yet despite my general opposition to most attempts to mess with a state's constitution, I'm hopeful this fall I'll have a chance to vote for a change in the Colorado constitution. The issue is apportionment of presidential electoral votes.

According to the Denver Post there is a ballot measure afoot to try and amend the state constitution such that electoral votes would be awarded strictly proportionally. Pure proportional allocation is definitely not my first choice for how the system should be reformed. But I'm hopeful that the proportional approach advocated in the ballot measure might be a step in the right direction.

I'm actually a fan of the electoral college and I think efforts to eliminate it are uninformed. But the fact is that the winner take all manner in which most states allocate their electoral votes means most states have little opportunity to contribute to the national campaign. There's no suspense, for example, in how Texas, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho are going to vote. As a result of the foregone GOP conclusion in these states, the Democratic candidate has no incentive to campaign in those states. (Hawaii, DC, and Rhode Island demonstrate the obverse.)

I would actually prefer Colorado (and most states) to adopt the congressional district model used by Maine and Nebraska. Under the system in place in these states the popular vote winner of the state is awarded two electoral votes. The remaining electoral votes for the state are allocated based upon the popular vote winner within each congressional district. The benefit of this approach is that the winner is justly rewarded (with at least two additional electoral votes) while there is a potential payoff to a state-wide second place finisher with strong support in certain congressional districts. In a state with varied constituencies in different congressional districts (e.g. urban Democrats in one part of the state versus rural Republicans elsewhere) the district model offers a greater chance for the state's electoral vote to reflect the popular will while preserving the benefits of the electoral college.

The only drawback to widespread use of the congressional district model -- and it's not an insignificant consideration -- is that because of gerrymandering and power politics the outcome of voting in many congressional districts nationwide is really not in doubt. In such cases, candidates would likely tend to avoid wasting resources in districts already known to favor their opponents (as evidenced by congressional representatives from the opposing party).

Unfortunately, it is a proportional model and not a congressional district model that is being proposed for fall consideration in Colorado.

The proportional model is already being criticized because of the possibility that the margin separating two candidates might be as little as a single electoral vote. This is a valid concern, I think. (Hence, my support for the congressional district model in which the winner earns a more significant margin.)

Yet in elections as closely contested as 2000 and 2004 a single electoral vote can make all the difference. So it's not necessarily true that Colorado would fall in importance. Besides, it's hard to be less important than we were in 2000 when an expected -- but not so easily obtained -- Bush victory resulted in little national attention.

And if, after a few elections when a single electoral vote separates the two candidates, there is a hew and cry to give the winner a greater margin, it ought to be a trivial matter to move from a proportional model to a congressional district model.

The key at this point is to overcome the inertia of 100 years of winner take all apportionment. So in the absence of an opportunity this fall to choose the congressional district model for Colorado I'm inclined to support the next best thing.