Letter: The truth about Prop. 113
Coloradans deserves an open and honest discussion on Proposition 113, aka the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Unfortunately, they are not getting it.
Proposition 113 does not abolish or change the Electoral College. As a conservative, I would never support a proposal that altered the constitutional framework of electing the president.
Constitutionally conservative and constitutionally consistent, Proposition 113 exercises Colorado’s authority under the U.S. Constitution to replace the state-based, winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes — a method James Madison opposed. Notably, states have routinely changed the method of awarding electors since the first presidential election.
Opponents falsely claim that Colorado’s vote “would be absorbed by California and New York.” The numbers do not lie: 82% of voters do not live in California and New York. It is impossible for 82% to be outvoted by 18%.
Quite bizarrely, opponents advocate the federalizing of elections because, according to them, state and local control creates post-election day litigation. If you’re worried about fraud determining the election, then you should be opposed to current method, which allows a single battleground state to overturn the entire election by less than a thousand votes. In an election under the popular vote, margins would be in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, thereby eliminating the risk.
Proposition 113 promotes the fundamental principle of one-person, one-vote by ensuring the presidential candidate who receives the most votes wins. In doing so, it amplifies the voice of conservatives at a time when Colorado is irrelevant in presidential elections.
Colorado, having gone “blue” in the last three elections, is not a battleground. As a result, the important issues facing the High Country and Western Slope are completely ignored as candidates instead pander to voters in the handful of states that actually decide the election.
Proposition 113, if passed, would in future elections require candidates of both parties to campaign and invest in every county in every state because winning would become a numbers game. This would actually help conservatives in Routt County, which is otherwise ignored by the GOP.
No longer would we elect a president of the battleground states. Rather, we would elect a president of the United States.
This explains why Trump says he supports a popular vote. He knows Republicans can win if the vast swath of “red” America had a reason to vote.
Campaign manager of Conservatives for Yes on National Popular Vote
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
Readers around Steamboat and Routt County make the Steamboat Pilot & Today’s work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.
Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.
Each donation will be used exclusively for the development and creation of increased news coverage.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User
Since the COVID-19 pandemic hit last March, states and counties have imposed restrictions that would have been previously unthinkable. When Routt County commissioners issued a public health order on Feb 1 that restricted the number…