Colorado Dreamin’

The ballot measure–the Colorado Electoral College Reform Initiative–would shift Colorado’s electoral votes from a winner-takes-all system to one based on the popular vote (all 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 initiative specifically asserts that it applies “retroactively” to the 2004 election. Opponents claim the initiative violates provisions in the state constitution that that prohibit retroactive legislation; its supporters claim to have found case law that supports some retroactive legislation.

HERE’S WHY the Colorado measure has national implications: had it been in effect four years ago, Al Gore would be president. And if it goes into effect beginning on November 2, it could decide this year’s race as well. Because George W. Bush won 51 percent of the state’s vote in 2000, he earned all 8 of Colorado’s electoral votes. But adjust that to reflect the state’s popular vote and Bush would have received only 5 electoral votes, changing the national total from 271-266 in favor of Bush to 269-268 for Gore. (Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that the one elector from Washington, D.C., who refused to vote for Gore would have come around, giving him the magical 270th vote).

It shouldn’t come as a surprise, then, that the Colorado effort has Democratic fingerprints. The campaign’s spokesman, Rick Ridder, also was campaign manager for Dean’s presidential run. He calls the electoral reform “a multi-partisan effort,” claiming that 20 percent of the campaign’s signatures are from Republicans. And the Republicans’ take? Ted Halaby, the GOP state chairman, says the initiative “just doesn’t pass the smell test.” Governor Bill Owens is less sanguine: “If that passes, Colorado will cease to be a factor in any presidential campaign in the future.”

HOW DID COLORADO get in this bind? One explanation is that it’s fertile ground for political mischief. With a history of citizen activism, Colorado is an easy state for launching and qualifying ballot initiatives (the 67,000-signature threshold in Colorado is about one-tenth the minimum in California). Also, the state’s voter registration–36 percent Republican, 30 percent Democratic, 32 percent independent–makes “multi-partisan” an easy message to sell. Finally, there’s a history of displeasure with the current system. Four years ago, a Democratic state senator, Ron Tupa, tried to talk the legislature into switching to the Maine-Nebraska model.

However, the initiative could end up backfiring on Colorado Democrats. Here’s how:

Start by assuming that Kerry wins the same 20 states that Gore carried four years ago. That leaves him with 260 votes in the realigned Electoral College, to Bush’s 278. Now, let’s assume that Kerry adds New Hampshire to his column, which is another 4 electoral votes. The count then would be 274-264, Bush. Give Kerry Colorado and its 9 electoral votes and he wins the presidency, 273-265. But not if the reform initiative passes.

Instead of the winner-take-all 9 votes, Kerry would receive only 5 electoral votes, to Bush’s 4 (this is assuming Ralph Nader doesn’t have enough of a presence to pick up 1 electoral vote) . 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 and Democrats get to mutter “we wuz robbed” for another four years.

Not that any Democrats would ever allow this to happen. Chances are the initiative would face a legal challenge–not from Republicans who currently oppose it, but from national Democrats who’d sue their Colorado brethren in hopes of overturning the measure and giving Kerry the extra 4 electoral votes.

This situation is equally silly, from a Republican perspective. Let’s suppose that Bush carries all the red states except for New Hampshire and Nevada. As those two states account for 9 electoral votes, once again we’re looking at a 269 tie in the Electoral College. But that’s assuming Colorado’s “new math” doesn’t go into effect and Bush doesn’t have to surrender 4 or 5 electoral votes (remember, he’d lose electoral votes in Colorado regardless of whether he carried the state). Republicans would be similarly motivated to file a lawsuit. Again, this could create a scenario whereby the courts, not voters, decided the outcome of the election.

And there’s the question of what happens to the future of presidential politics if the Colorado movement succeeds, and then is imported to other states.

At present, here’s how the two parties would fare in their five most electoral-rich states, taking the same voting percentages as in the 2000 election and using both the winner-take-all and proportional systems:

WHO LOSES if the Colorado reform becomes a national model? Try small states, which benefit under the current winner-takes-all system. Watch the Bush and Kerry campaigns and you’ll notice the excruciating attention they give to less-populated “fly-over” states like Nevada and New Mexico (5 electoral votes apiece). Meanwhile, California, with its 55 electoral votes and reputation as a true-blue-Democratic state, will get scant attention after Labor Day.

But apply the Colorado reform to the Golden State and the dynamics change.

Assuming Bush receives the same 42 percent in California as he did in 2000, he’d get 23 electoral votes on November 2. But, if the president could bump his share of the California vote by another 3 percentage points, he’d receive 2 more electoral votes. Thus, rather than toil away in narrowly-contested states like New Mexico or Colorado, where only one electoral vote is likely to change hands regardless of who wins the popular vote, Bush and Kerry would be tempted to look to larger states for bigger hauls of electoral votes. That’s good news for Californians who have not had much of a say in presidential politics since Ronald Reagan was in office.

And that may be the best argument against the Colorado initiative: if it makes sense to Californians, you know there must be something terribly wrong with the whole idea.

Bill Whalen is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, where he follows California and national politics.