• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Lucas Quintero, high school student at Ponderosa HS writes:

Below is my response to Mike Rosen’s “Electoral Hypocrisy” (11-02-07).
Dear Mr. Rosen, I am currently a sophomore at Ponderosa High School registered in a United States Government class. After reading you November 2nd editorial, I completely agreed to your main points. As you said, “This [POPULAR VOTES] would marginalize less-populous states.” If you compare Colorado to California you would see that California has 6.111 times the electoral votes that Colorado has. If you compare the populations then you would see that California has 7.67 times the population of Colorado. This means with a popular vote Colorado would receive less of a say in deciding our nation’s leader. Not only Colorado, but most of the other states will also have little importance in the decision in the election. You said, “The single standard at work here, obviously, is whatever’s good for Democrats.” So shouldn’t Republican’s be attempting the same in Democratic states? If Democrats are taking votes from Republican states, shouldn’t Republicans take votes from Democratic states? By the way shouldn’t we, as republicans, want Colorado to be popular vote state? Especially since Colorado is becoming a Democratic state? In 1988, Bush (R) won the popular vote in Colorado 53.1% to Dukakis’ (D) 45.3%. In 2004, Bush (R) won 52% to Kerry’s (D) 47%. Overall I feel that the idea of a national popular vote is okay, only if the whole nation abolishes electoral votes.

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

lucas you really need to revisit what you just said. if the popular vote elected the preisdent then the only states that would matter are NY FL CA ILL and TX. the rest could stay home on election day

2:26

In his last sentence Lucas stated: Overall I feel that the idea of a national popular vote is okay, only if the whole nation abolishes electoral votes.

I don't understand your point. Presidential candidates don't campaign (much) in Colorado because they're too busy campaigning in the states you mentioned because that's where the electoral votes are. Now, if you vote for the candidate of the losing party, your vote is meaningless because the winner gets all the electoral votes. So I have to agree with the assertion - only if the whole nation abolishes electoral votes.

A presidential vote cast just across our northern border iin Wyoming has three times the weight (electoral votes per voter) as here. In effect, the Wyoming voter gets three votes to our one in Colorado. Does that strike anyone as fair and equitable?

Let's look at this another way. The last two presidential elections were stolen by swinging just one state, Florida, in 2000 and just two states, Florida and Ohio, in 2004. So it seems you prefer Wally O'dell of Diebold voting machines deciding the leader of the world's only super power rather than the electorate. Good plan.

I read that O'Dell was a big honcho in the Republican Party and promised a convention of the party (in Florida) that he'd deliver the state of Ohio's electoral votes to G.W. Bush.

It's not who you vote for that counts, it's who counts the votes.

J

Were was it stolen? the pesident is elected by the people along with the electoral college. If you want to talk about a stolen election look back to the 1960 presidental election between Kennedy and Nixon in Chicago were all those dead got up to vote for Kennedy. When it came out that some of the people who had voted were dead Nixon did not ask for a recount to see who had really won. When ask why not he said "the nation did not want to go through another recount to see who won."

brad, can you read? were (sic) it was stolen was Florida and Ohio. Read up on current events and leave 1960 out of this.

J
Then leave 2000 and 2004 out if you don' want to bring up 1960 and yes I can can you.

J
Then leave 2000 and 2004 out if you don' want to bring up 1960 and yes I can can you.

brad, You cite zombie votes in 1960 and then demand I leave out the most recent two presidential elections. Think before you type. I answered where, I can only assume you would like to know how.

2000: in addition to the famous ballot issues (which a Florida newspaper reported would have favored Gore under various criteria if the count was completed) there was also large scale suppression of black voters and the illegal signing of thousands of unsigned absentee ballots by the republicans though this action was denied the democrats. The final "official results" were less than 800 votes different.

2004: (in addition to MASSIVE voter suppression) in fact and on the record Wally O'Dell of Diebold voting machines "guarenteed" he would deliver Ohio's electoral votes to Bush. And a non-partisan university statistician calculated the likelyhood of the deviatian of the "official results" from the exit polls in Ohio and Florida to approach a million to one EACH (in Florida we are expected to believe that Bush got a half million more votes than in 2000). That means the odds of both being that far off is satistically near a trillion to one. If you believe that then buy a single Lotto ticket, 50 millon to one is a sure thing.

Yes, without a doubt both elections were stolen. If you actually want to know the reason why read the PNAC report. Do the research and you just might see the truth.

This is in reply to Romulus who notes: "A presidential vote cast just across our northern border iin Wyoming has three times the weight (electoral votes per voter) as here. Does that strike anyone as fair and equitable?"

In case Romulus wasn't paying attention during his high school history classes the House and Senate, and the electoral votes that come from the combined number of seats in both bodies per state were all part of the "Great Compromise" between small and large states that led to the US Constitution. Without this compromise, there would be no United States. Isn't it better to just leave the "Great Compromise" in place, and find ways to work together where possible rather than sniping over party differences that have no enduring meaning? Giving a small group of people like the citizens of Wyoming more power isn't necessarily a bad thing. It helps to ensure they won't become victims to the tyranny of the majority. Large populous states always will have more power.

The electoral college is here to stay. We can argue until the Sun goes nova, and it won't change a thing. Webviking is right: That was part of a compromise package between the small states and the big states. Then as now, small states were afraid of being swamped by the big states. It takes 36 states to approve a constituional amendment to abolish or significantly change the Electoral College and that's just not in the cards.
Regarding the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the 2000 election: The vote difference between Bush and Gore was smaller than the margin of error inherent in any human system. It was a statistical tie, and ties aren't allowed. If either Bush or Gore had shown the same intensity to win during the regular campaign that they showed in the post-election "legal Olympics", that person would have won by a large margin with no dispute.
I can't stand Bush, but he was declared president, he was sworn in, and that's all that matters.

no stan we need the electoral college to keep the playing field even. NYC has more people in it than all of colorado but then you would like their votes as they are very liberal and progressive dumocrats.

J you need to get on with your life gore lost and so did kerry and they lost by votes and not stolen elections. why is it the dems have so much problem with showing an valid ID to vote? oh yeah it keeps the dead and bugs bunny from voting agian

Stan and J,
I seem to recall in 2006 a vote in Virginia of George Allen vs. Jim Webb that was very very close (49% to 49%) and had discrepancies in the counting. The Senator didn't whine and cry and demand recounts and go to court - he conceded gracefully and moved on.
Why is it that the democratic party candidates always scream bloody murder when a vote is close and they lose - but when the vote is close and they win they don't want to hear anything other than congratulations.
The hypocrisy of the democratic party is appalling, and now you two write the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen, but dismiss the activity in 1960 conducted by the Democratic party.
get real

“The only true divinity is humanity.” William Pitt~~~ Perhaps J and Brad can discern for me how humanity can be divine or should we put it to a vote? I think young Lucas published a thoughtful letter; I applaud you, Lucas. Perhaps it is best to leave it as the Founders found it.

POST A COMMENT

• Uneven justice
• Smoking ban on CU campus
• Response to Mike Rosen
• Funding bill for Iraq
• Counting Denver ballots
• Mayor stole A thru I
• Beltway proposal
• Gov. Ritter’s executive order