Democrats have never gotten over the fact that George Bush won the presidential election in 2000. He had not even been sworn into office before Democrat strategists drew their long knives, preparing for the nastiest, most rancorous assault on a sitting president in the memory of most Americans. They were determined to drive George W. Bush out of the White House, no matter what it took.

In addition to the increasingly vicious slanders and denigrations heaped upon President Bush by angry Democrats ever since the election, it appears party leaders in one state may have found a way to “lawfully” undermine Bush’s chances for a second term.

In Colorado, the Democrats have devised a strategy for handing John Kerry at least four additional electoral votes, even if he loses the state’s popular vote. It is a ballot measure called the Colorado Electoral College Reform Initiative, and it could shift Colorado’s electoral votes from the current winner-take-all system to one based on the popular vote. (All 50 states are winner-take-all, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, where the winner of the popular vote automatically gets 2 electoral votes, with the rest determined by the popular vote within each congressional district.)

The system proposed for Colorado (which will be on the ballot for the voters to decide in November) is different. It would prorate the state’s electoral votes on the basis of the popular vote. In practice—because races are generally so close—this means the loser will always get at least four of Colorado’s nine electoral votes. (Since the 2000 election, Colorado has added one electoral vote, based on results of the 2000 census.)

Why Colorado?

Bill Whalen, writing for The Weekly Standard, points out that Colorado, with its history of political activism, has always been fertile ground for political mischief. Its voter registration is a nearly-even, three-way split—36 percent Republican, 30 percent Democratic, 32 percent independent, which makes it easy to sell issues as “multi-partisan” and thus get voters behind the efforts to launch ballot initiatives. Add to that the fact that the 67,000-signature requirement in Colorado is low‑‑about one-tenth of what is required in California, for example. (“How Colorado voters could mess things up for either Bush or Kerry,” Aug. 18, 2004)

The spokesman for the campaign for electoral change in Colorado is Democrat Rick Ridder, who was campaign manager for Howard Dean. Ridder claims the reform effort is “multi-partisan” since 20 percent of the signatures to put the measure on the ballot are from Republicans. The Rocky Mountain News (July 31, 2004) quotes Ridder, who says the movement in Colorado is part of “a nationwide effort to make the presidential election process more responsible to the wishes of all the people. If every state did it, it would empower smaller states,” he said.

But would it?

Colorado governor Bill Owens and Ted Halaby, chairman of the Colorado State Republican Party, do not agree. Both denounced the plan, which they see as a political ploy that could destroy Colorado's clout in presidential elections.

Owens and Halaby believe that passage of the initiative would mean that Colorado's future electoral college balloting would provide only one additional vote for whoever won the popular vote in the state. Because races are generally so close, they say, the electoral vote would always be 5-4 unless there was a landslide.

“If we are in fact a 5-4 state, meaning a net of one, no presidential candidate or campaign would care about Colorado,” Owens said. “If you believe in the fundamental concept of the Electoral College, that it gives small states more power compared to big states, then this is clearly not in our best interests as a small state.”

The Governor added that if the initiative passes, “Colorado will cease to be a factor in any presidential campaign in the future.” (Rocky Mountain News, July 31, 2004)

Political Motivation

The wording of the Colorado initiative specifically states that it applies “retroactively” to the 2004 election. Opponents of the measure say the initiative violates a provision in the Colorado Constitution that prohibits retroactive legislation. Not surprisingly, supporters of the measure claim they have found case law that supports some retroactive legislation.

Bruce Bartlett, syndicated columnist and Senior Fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, says, “Although there are legitimate criticisms to make of the Electoral College, the Colorado effort is nothing but a transparently partisan effort to give Kerry a couple of extra electoral votes. If the election this year is as close as the polls suggest that it will be, it could mean the margin of victory.” (“How Colorado could help John Kerry win,” TownHall.com, Aug. 19, 2004)

The move to change Colorado’s electoral law has obvious national implications. George W. Bush won 51 percent of the state’s popular vote in 2000, and thus earned all eight of Colorado’s electoral votes. However, if the proposed change in Colorado had been in effect four years ago, Al Gore would be president today. Bush would have received only five electoral votes, changing the national total from 271-266 in favor of Bush to 269-268 in favor of Gore.

If it goes into effect beginning on November 2, it could decide this year’s presidential race.

It Could Backfire

Whalen says the initiative could backfire for Colorado Democrats. He suggests a possible scenario: If we assume that Kerry wins the same 20 states that Gore carried four years ago, and assuming he also took New Hampshire, he would have 264 electoral votes, as opposed to Bush’s 274. However, if Kerry takes Colorado this time and its 9 electoral votes, he wins 273-265.

“But not if the reform initiative passes,” Whalen says. “That would evenly divide the Electoral College at 269-apiece, leaving the U.S. House of Representatives to break the tie. As the House is likely to remain in GOP hands, Bush likely gets a second term . . .”

In that event, we can be sure the initiative would face a legal challenge from national Democrats, who would sue their Colorado contingent in the hope of overturning the measure and giving Kerry the extra 4 electoral votes.

But, suppose Bush carried all the red states except New Hampshire and Nevada, which together represent 9 electoral votes. Once again, there would be a 269-269 tie, assuming the Colorado initiative had not gone into effect. If it had, Bush would lose electoral votes there, regardless of whether he carried the state or not. Thus, Republicans would be motivated to file a lawsuit and it would be the courts, not the voters, who decided the outcome.

If the Colorado movement to change their electoral system succeeds and is pursued by other states, there are significant concerns as to what happens to the future of presidential elections. Smaller, less populous states would definitely be the losers. Rather than giving attention to narrowly contested states such as New Mexico or Colorado where only one electoral vote is likely to change hands regardless of the popular vote, candidates would woo the larger states (such as California) for bigger hauls of electoral votes.

That may be the best argument against the Colorado initiative.