Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
GREELEY, Colo. - The banner behind President Bush at a campaign rally Monday said "Victory in the Rockies."
But a constitutional amendment on the Colorado ballot could change the definition of victory - and possibly the outcome of the presidential election.
Colorado voters are considering a constitutional amendment that would change the state's representation in the Electoral College. Instead of the usual winner-take-all rule, the electors would be divided to reflect the popular vote.
Amendment 36 has added a wrinkle to the presidential election because it would take effect immediately. The race in Colorado between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry is close, so the winner would probably get five votes and the second-place candidate would get the other four.
The proposal has been challenged in court; the appeals likely will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court, a prospect that has rekindled memories of the 2000 election dispute in Florida. If the Colorado amendment passes and only a few electoral votes separate President Bush and Kerry, Amendment 36 could decide who wins the presidency.
The debate about the amendment reflects the broader disagreement about the Electoral College. Supporters say the winner-take-all system - used by all states except Maine and Nebraska - leaves some voters without a voice. For example, Bush supporters in California complain they are irrelevant because Kerry is a heavy favorite to win the state.
Nationally, the candidate who wins the popular vote can lose the presidency, as happened with Al Gore in 2000. If the Colorado measure had been in effect, Gore would have won the presidency.
Julie Brown, the campaign director of Make Your Vote Count, a Denver group promoting the amendment, said it provides a more fair way to allocate the state's nine electoral votes.
"We fundamentally believe those nine should reflect the way people voted," she said.
But opponents, including elected officials from both parties, say Amendment 36 will dilute Colorado's clout. They predict presidential candidates won't bother to stop in the state because they will have so little to gain. The Republican and Democratic nominees will probably receive four electoral votes just by being on the ballot. Why make a big, expensive effort just to receive one more?
"If you go from nine electoral votes to one, you've lost your clout," said Katy Atkinson, who heads a business-backed opposition group, Coloradans Against A Really Stupid Idea.
She says opposition to the amendment "is one of the few things Republicans and Democrats agree on this year."
The main donor supporting the amendment is Jorge Klor de Alva, a California businessman. Opponents have accused him of meddling in Colorado's affairs.
Bush and Kerry have not taken a position on the amendment. It's not clear which candidate stands to benefit most from the proposal. Bush beat Gore in Colorado 51-42, but the race this year is close.
Early polls showed a majority of Colorado voters supported the amendment, but opponents ran a barrage of TV ads against it. Polls have since showed it lacking enough support to pass.
The rules in Maine and Nebraska are slightly different from the Colorado proposal. They allocate the electoral votes based on the winner in each congressional district. The candidate who wins the state total gets an additional two electoral votes.
At a Bush campaign rally in Greeley on Monday, several of the president's supporters said they opposed the Colorado proposal.
"It changes what our Founding Fathers established," said Renita McColley, a stay-at-home mom from Windsor. "Whoever thought it up back in the 1700s was pretty smart."
Bill Sarchet, 70, a retired farmer from Hudson, said supporters of the amendment are "the Me generation." He said it's more important to protect the broader interests of the entire state.
"If you go to a full vote (without the Electoral College), who is going to control it? Your big-city states. ... The smaller states are out," he said.
Brown disagrees that the proposal would hurt Colorado in national politics. She said individual votes should be the top priority.
"What matters to voters," she said, "is their personal clout in the voting booth."