out here, somewhere, figuring it all out.
Amendment 36 is a tough one, but extremely important. Those opposed to it are on both sides of the political fence, but the most prominent voices are those of the far right. That right there sends a red flag up for me.
It's very intense proposition especially if it passes, it will be retroactive. I think that alone is going to persuade many to vote against it even if they think it’s a good idea.
Some say it could cause Colorado to become insignifigant and ignored in future elections. Well, look at the process now. Many states are ignored if they’re a sure thing for one candidate. Only swing states matter now (and colorado wasn’t one of those in 2000). If a candidate knows that s/he would be able to pick up a few electoral votes here, then I think it would be pretty damn risky/stupid for that campaign to totally ignore Colorado.
We live in a so-called democracy, so people want their damn vote to count. And so many important issues hang in the balance of this election: the war (I’d like my dad to come home), Roe, jobs, healthcare, civil liberties, etc. These are reasons people vote (I hope) and it should count.
The way I see it, we can continue on the path we’re on, or we can change it for the better. I voted for 36 and even if it doesn’t pass, at least it’s on the country’s radar.
"The harsh fact is that the winner-take-all system of casting each state's electoral vote for president effectively disenfranchises every voter in the state who supports the losing candidate."
"Nearly 3 million people voted for Al Gore for president in Florida in the 2000 presidential election. However, because George W. Bush won 537 more votes than Gore, all of Florida's electoral votes went to him. ... In effect, the system gives the votes of the people who voted against the winner to the winner."