portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting united states

election fraud | human & civil rights | media criticism

If Colorado Referendum for proportional rep. on electoral vote wins, then Kerry wins

Though with these voting machines, who knows? Nothing can be verified.

METHOD: I've been creating a database all evening on incoming changing totals, looking at MSNBC charts and BBC's Shockwave maps.

FINDINGS: "In Colorado, electoral seats could be divided up between incumbent George W. Bush and Democratic candidate John Kerry if a proportional representation referendum on the ballot on Tuesday succeeds." [Presently BBC is now reporting (taking from AP) and I quote "Proponents of Proposition 36...have conceded defeat." However, no where can I find the actual totals! ok, Here is what Washington Times said: "The vote was 66 to 33 percent against the amendment, with 43 percent of the vote counted."

The way I am figuring it, without that referendum, its Bush by 270/1+ to Kerry ~266. The Bush total of 270+ is with him getting all 9 electoral votes from Colorado. However, with proportional representation of the whole demographic of the vote in Colorado, with the present spread of 53.2 (Bush) and 45.6 (Kerry) then Kerry will get a bit of the ones temporarily put in the Bush column. OH GOD...

"When Colorado voters go to the polls in four weeks they won't just be electing a president; they will be determining via ballot initiative whether the state's nine electoral votes ought to be split proportionately based upon the results of the election. If the measure passes, in other words, instead of getting all nine Electoral College votes, the winner of the state's popular vote almost certainly would get only five of those votes; the loser almost certainly would get four. Had the proposed change been in place in 2000, Al Gore would be president today. [even with Bush/Diebold vote fraud and rigged Florida elections]."
In Colorado, electoral seats could be divided up between incumbent George W. Bush and Democratic candidate John Kerry if a proportional representation referendum on the ballot on Tuesday succeeds.

The Electoral College members will convene in each state's capital on December 13 and submit their votes under seal to the US Congress, where they will officially be reviewed on January 6.




From New Nation Online Edition

World News
Electoral College system
By AFP, Washington
Nov 1, 2004, 12:25



The next president of the United States will be decided on December 13 by the 538-member Electoral College made up of electors from each US state and the nation's capital chosen during Tuesday's presidential election.

Each of the 50 US states, plus Washington DC, has a minimum of three Electoral College votes, but those with the largest populations have the most.


The distribution is recalculated every 10 years to take into account shifts that have occurred in the nation's demographics.

To win, a candidate must secure at least 270 of the 538 Electoral College votes, making a few states especially important: the Democratic bastion of California, with 55 electoral votes; the Republican stronghold of Texas, with 34; heavily Democratic New York, with 31; and politically divided Florida, with 27.

The Electoral College does not exactly mirror the popular vote, however, as 48 of the 50 states award all of their electoral votes to the candidate who garnered the most votes in the state.

Nebraska, with five electoral votes, and Maine with four, are the only exceptions, assigning their Electoral College votes to the candidate who won in each individual [gerrymandered] congressional district and the rest proportionally based on the number of votes won by each candidate. [Maine already has proportional rep in their electoral collge vote? In my total for Nebraska I gave Bush 3 and Kerry 2; until I know better for Maine--I thought they still apportioned E.C. votes by wierd gerrymandered districts in Maine as well--I have given each 2. This is the first article I have heard to say that maine uses proportional representation already for their electoral college vote!]

In Colorado, electoral seats could be divided up between incumbent George W. Bush and Democratic candidate John Kerry if a proportional representation referendum on the ballot on Tuesday succeeds.

The Electoral College members will convene in each state's capital on December 13 and submit their votes under seal to the US Congress, where they will officially be reviewed on January 6.

The system means that candidates must concentrate on states where the result is uncertain. This year, the key battleground states include Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Citizens in US territories such as Guam, Puerto Rico, Samoa and the Virgin Islands are not eligible to participate in the US presidential election.

Why was the system chosen?

When the United States was founded, a national campaign was almost impossible given the communications; states were jealous of their rights; political parties were suspect and the popular vote somewhat feared.

The framers of the Constitution in 1787 rejected both the election of the president by Congress - because of the separation of powers - and election by direct popular vote, on the grounds that people would vote for their local candidate and the big states would dominate.

Another factor was that Southern states favoured the College system. Slaves had no votes but counted as three-fifths of a person for computing the size of a state's population.

The original idea was that only the great and the good in each state would make up the electors in the Electoral College. Over the years the College has been changed to better reflect the popular will.


 http://nation.ittefaq.com/artman/publish/printer_13548.shtml



2.

Electoral Quagmire-In-Waiting?
Oct. 6, 2004


A 5-4 vote in Washington determined the last presidential election. A 5-4 split of Colorado's electoral votes could determine the next one.

When Colorado voters go to the polls in four weeks they won't just be electing a president; they will be determining via ballot initiative whether the state's nine electoral votes ought to be split proportionately based upon the results of the election. If the measure passes, in other words, instead of getting all nine Electoral College votes, the winner of the state's popular vote almost certainly would get only five of those votes; the loser almost certainly would get four. Had the proposed change been in place in 2000, Al Gore would be president today. And if the initiative passes, it very well could determine whether George Bush keeps his job or John Kerry takes it.

That's because, if it passes, the initiative, labeled "Amendment 36" on the ballot, will go into effect on Nov 3 the day after the election. That means that when the vote in Colorado is certified, when the state's "presidential electors" are selected, and when they go to Washington to cast their votes in the Electoral College, the law in Colorado will direct them to divide themselves proportionately. Colorado voters therefore will be deciding in this upcoming election whether they want to change the rules in Colorado for this upcoming election. Who says life is laid back in the Rocky Mountain West?

Now, if the results of the presidential election are not as close as some think they'll be, that is to say, if either George W. Bush or John Kerry amasses a lead in the electoral vote count that is more than nine votes, no one will care much about Amendment 36 outside of Colorado. But if the contest is razor close, as virtually every pollster suggests it will be, the outcome of the Amendment 36 vote could either determine the presidency or at least delay its determination.

If Amendment 36 does not pass right now a majority of Coloradoans appear to support it then the only thing that will give everyone a headache the morning after the election will be close races and recount possibilities in Iowa, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, Missouri, Ohio, Maine, Florida, Wisconsin and New Mexico. See you at the courthouse in Madison in early December! Or back at the Hilton Garden in Tallahassee! Or, better yet, back on the steps of the United States Supreme Court in the middle of December!

And even if Amendment 36 passes, it might not matter outside of Colorado. If, for example, President Bush wins the electoral vote count without winning Colorado, no one will care about Amendment 36 because the four extra votes he would pick up via Amendment 36 obviously won't determine the outcome of the election. Likewise, if John Kerry wins the electoral vote count without taking Colorado, there will be no incentive for the Democrats to make a federal case out of Amendment 36.

But what if Amendment 36 passes and George Bush or John Kerry wins the electoral vote count thanks to a victory in Colorado? And what if the electoral vote count nationwide is less than four? Then Amendment 36 will matter a whole lot. Then the four Electoral College votes "lost" to the "winner" of the Colorado vote thanks to Amendment 36 will make a difference in the outcome of the race. Then you'll see a legal donnybrook the likes of which we haven't see since the "Battle of the Hanging Chads" of Florida.

There are two obvious legal challenges to Amendment 36. The first is that Colorado voters cannot by ballot initiative take away from the state legislature the constitutional responsibility to "appoint" presidential electors. Indeed, the Constitution specifically states that "Each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." The battle of Amendment 36 will center therefore on what the meaning of the word "legislature" means.

Proponents of Amendment 36 likely will say that the Colorado law permits the voters, through the state constitution and the initiative process, to take on certain legislative functions like changing the rules about electoral votes. This side likely will posit that the state legislature gave citizens the right to "legislate" when it gave them the power to propose and pass ballot initiatives. So, these folks say, the state legislature nearly a century ago "directed" a "manner" for appointing presidential electors that contemplated the abdication of this power to the electorate itself. This is a complicated argument but there is support for it under Colorado law.

Opponents of Amendment 36 are likely to say that the word "legislature" ought to mean "legislature" and that if the citizens of Colorado want to change the rules governing the apportionment of their electoral votes they ought to do it the old fashioned way by lobbying and badgering and threatening their local politicians to make the changes through the State House. They will likely say that the federal constitution does not contemplate a scenario whereby a ballot initiative can circumvent the traditional role the legislature is supposed to play in determining state rules for electoral votes. This is a far simpler argument but I'm not sure there is as much support for it under Colorado law.

The other likely challenge to Amendment 36 is a temporal one. Opponents of the initiative will argue that even if it is the exercise of legitimate power by the voters, its impact on the actual Electoral College vote ought to first take place for the 2008 election, after, presumably, it is vetted by however many courts want to vet it. Proponents of the Amendment will say that the Colorado Supreme Court suggests that the temporal problem is not a legal problem unless the voters do not get ample notice of the effect of the initiative. Anticipating this argument, these proponents have been shouting at the rooftops about Amendment 36 in order to try to subsequently ward off this lack-of-notice argument in court.

Compared with the Florida recount battle, which consisted of many different legal issues spread out over many different jurisdictions, the battle over Amendment 36 will seem relatively compact. One case. One set of lawyers. An expedited schedule built into the terms of the initiative (another smart salve by proponents of the Amendment because it precludes the sky-is-falling Florida-redux argument about the Colorado legal battle not being completed before the Electoral College meets in Washington in December). It will likely take only a week or two. The time will seem short if the election isn't riding on its result. If it is, those days, again, will seem like an eternity.


 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/06/opinion/courtwatch/printable647763.shtml




3.

Colorado electoral issue defeated



Denver, CO, Nov. 2 (UPI) -- Colorado voters Tuesday defeated a proposal that would have altered the way the state's electoral votes are allocated, the Rocky Mountain News reported.


Proposition 36 would have made Colorado the only state in the nation that allocated its electoral votes proportionally based on the popular vote. The vote was 66 to 33 percent against the amendment, with 43 percent of the vote counted.

As in 48 other states, all of Colorado's nine electoral votes are currently awarded to the candidate who wins the state. The amendment was to be effective immediately, so it could have changed the award of the votes in this election. Maine and Nebraska are the only two states that do not have a winner-take-all system. However, their electoral votes are awarded according to the outcomes in congressional districts.

Republican Gov. Bill Owens was one of the most outspoken critics of the amendment, which he said would dilute the clout of Colorado in presidential elections.[Bullshit. That means that everyone gets a vote equally. Right now there is an electoral college gerrymander.]

Supporters of the amendment said it would better represent the one-person-one vote ideals of the American democracy. [yep.]

Some analysts worried that it could affect the outcome of this year's president race if it was passed and there was close contest for electoral votes.

 http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041103-120524-9527r.htm

I still want to see the exit poll results on Proposition 36....

4.

AND A HUGE AMOUNT OF FRAUD HAS BEEN REPORTED IN SOUTH CAROLINA COMPARED TO ITS LOW POPULATION.
I ACCUSE COLORADO OF VOTE FRAUD! 02.Nov.2004 23:59

me

In October 2004: "If Amendment 36 does not pass right now a majority of Coloradoans appear to support it... "

Did you catch that?! In early October 2004 a majority was said to be for the proportional representation of the Colorado electoral vote.

And then one hour ago, November 3, 2004, according to the GoogleNews timestamp on the Washington Times article I found:



Colorado electoral issue defeated
[passive verb or an active verb?]




Denver, CO, Nov. 2 (UPI) -- Colorado voters [THERE IS NO WAY OF TELLING ANY MORE] Tuesday defeated a proposal that would have altered the way the state's electoral votes are allocated, the Rocky Mountain News reported.


Proposition 36 would have made Colorado the only state in the nation that allocated its electoral votes proportionally based on the popular vote. The vote was 66 to 33 percent against the amendment, with 43 percent of the vote counted.

As in 48 other states, all of Colorado's nine electoral votes are currently awarded to the candidate who wins the state. The amendment was to be effective immediately, so it could have changed the award of the votes in this election. Maine and Nebraska are the only two states that do not have a winner-take-all system. However, their electoral votes are awarded according to the outcomes in congressional districts.

Republican Gov. Bill Owens was one of the most outspoken critics of the amendment, which he said would dilute the clout of Colorado in presidential elections. [Bullshit. It would be more representative of the individual voter demographic of the state, all voters.]

Supporters of the amendment said it would better represent the one-person-one vote ideals of the American democracy. [Yep.]

Some analysts worried that it could affect the outcome of this year's president race if it was passed and there was close contest for electoral votes.

 http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041103-120524-9527r.htm

Give It Up - Are You SERIOUSLY Relying on the "Democratic" 03.Nov.2004 00:01

Party

to do something about this??

the statistical analyses all agreed - even though the totally inaccurate "polls" were lying about being "tied" -

that this year's Presidential election would MOST LIKELY result in a landslide victory, for one or the other candidate.

Ohio and Florida are GONE - just as Karl Rove and Walden C. O'Dell (Diebold chairman, from Ohio) predicted.

I totally agree with you that massive vote fraud, nationwide, has been perpetrated here - especially witht greater than 60% voter turnout -

but unfortunately, while REAL ACTIVISTS like Bev Harris and Lynn Landes were busy exposing and bringing legal action against Electronic Voting Corporations for the past 2 years (much of it first distributed and reposted here on Portland Indymedia),

the Corporate Skull & Bones "Democrats" - who have now permanently relinquished the White House along with BOTH Houses of Congress - were too busy bashing Nader/Camejo with their big-money legal campaign to obstruct ballot access.

what a pathetic joke of a country this is. especially "mainstream" "politics" [both in quotes]

unfortunately, it looks like thats not passing 03.Nov.2004 02:44

pollyanne

 http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/ballot.measures/
Colorado Amendment 36:
Allocating Electoral Votes
Updated: 5:31 a.m. ET

Full CO Yes 602,954 34% 91% of precincts reporting

to polyanne: discrepancies and illegal voter purges in Colorado before election 04.Nov.2004 18:01

me

Any way to verify that, like auditing the votes? No? Well, who knows then?

FIRST, according to comparable polls only a month before, a majority wanted it. The Republican governor hated it.

SECOND, Colorado additionally decided to throw out of its vote rosters all ex-felons. Problem is, that there is no law in Colorado for throwing ex-felons off the list. The Repubican executive of Colorado just "did it." The state actually called an "emergency" to ram it through.


quoting Greg Palast:

The Urge To Purge

Colorado Secretary of State Donetta Davidson just weeks ago removed several thousand voters from the state's voter rolls. She tagged felons as barred from voting. What makes this particularly noteworthy is that, unlike like Florida and a handful of other Deep South states, Colorado does not bar ex-cons from voting. Only those actually serving their sentence lose their rights.

There's no known, verified case of a Colorado convict voting illegally from the big house. Because previous purges have wiped away the rights of innocents, federal law now bars purges within 90 days of a presidential election to allow a voter to challenge their loss of civil rights.

To exempt her action from the federal rule, Secretary Davidson declared an "emergency." However, the only "emergency" in Colorado seems to be President Bush's running dead, even with John Kerry in the polls.

Why the sudden urge to purge? Davidson's chief of voting law enforcement is Drew Durham, who previously worked for the attorney general of Texas. This is what the former spokesman for the Lone Star State's attorney general says of Mr. Durham: He is "unfit for public office... a man with a history of racism and ideological zealotry." Sounds just right for a purge that affects, in the majority, non-white voters.

From my own and government investigations of such purge lists, it is unlikely that this one contains many, if any, illegal voters.

But it does contain Democrats. The Dems may not like to shout about this, but studies indicate that 90-some percent of people who have served time for felonies will, after prison, vote Democratic. One suspects Colorado's Republican secretary of state knows that.

 http://www.tompaine.com/articles/an_election_spoiled_rotten.php