In an attempt to pack more power into each of the state’s voters for the upcoming presidential election, Colorado recently proposed abolishing the winner-takes-all system of giving all its electoral votes to the majority candidate. Instead, the Rocky Mountain State is looking to join Nebraska and Maine in distributing its electoral votes based on the popular vote. The new model, which shifts voting power to the people, would serve as a good model for other states, including Massachusetts, whose residents often feel shut out of the democratic process because they are so overwhelmingly Democratic.
While the Electoral College is in serious need of reform, completely abolishing it would not eliminate unfair voting distribution, but would shift voting power from swing states such as Pennsylvania and Michigan to major cities such as New York and Los Angeles.
Direct elections would make every vote count, but also create many problems. The hyper-focus on raising funds would reach even greater proportions if candidates must consider each state and each vote. If the president were directly elected, presidential candidates would find ways to turn their already circus-like campaigns into a spending free-for-all.
In direct elections, though, at least every vote would count the same. In a country that prides itself on equality and is ostensibly run by the people, the Electoral College is a system that takes the power of votes out of many states and gives them to another. Without the College, President George W. Bush and Democratic Sen. John Kerry would not focus their efforts on a few swing states but would expand their campaign all over the country.
If Colorado applies this system, it could be a major stepping stone toward nationwide voting reform. States that are locked on Bush or Kerry should consider changing their system to mirror this proposal. Massachusetts, always a Democratic state, would not constantly be ignored by presidential candidates. Under this proposed system, candidates would discover the untapped stores of Republicans in Massachusetts suburbs and the western part of the state, and that party would finally have a voice in the Bay State.
While Colorado should propose this system, it should not enact it immediately, which is what it wants to do. Abolishing the current system, enforcing the new one, and capturing Democratic votes in time for this year’s race between Kerry and Bush is blatant political meandering. If the state is serious about the system, it should wait four years for the next election to show that the system is more than a political tool to bring votes to Kerry.
Immediate enactment would also be unfair to both presidential campaigns. Kerry completely bypassed Colorado because of its strong republican tradition, which has overwhelmingly elected Republican candidates for the past 50 years.
The last presidential election, in which Bush lost the popular vote and ended up battling for the elected position through the Supreme Court, exposed the Electoral College’s major flaw – it does not count each voter equally. While a quick switch from the Electoral College to the popular vote would not solve this dilemma, popularizing electoral votes in a few states could lead to a reformed voting system nationwide.
