Skip Navigation - Search the MetOnline

Metonline Logo
Powered by Google

Volume 27, Issue 12, october 28, 2004

Opinion

Amendment 36: A really stupid idea?

mugAmanda McManus
Columnist

Trying to find truth in anything remotely political is akin to discovering—by way of contact—a needle in a haystack. Even if some is found, it still stings.

Amendment 36, for instance, seems quite attractive on paper. A daring risk at change, it would completely redraw Colorado’s standing in comparison with the rest of the country.

But not for the better.

We’ve all seen the commercials: Amendment 36, a cheery and reassuring voice claims, would ensure everyone’s vote would matter. It’s all about “one person, one vote,” chirps the voiceover.

To divide Colorado’s electoral votes would completely diminish our state’s importance in any nationwide election. Furthermore, such a foolish idea, if miraculously passed, would instantly end up in court. Both sides already have attorneys standing by. Meaning Bush’s presidency, should he win, would be decided yet again by a judge and this time because of liberals.

“One person, one vote” indeed.

Why should voters allow ‘One Judge’ to hold more power than all of Colorado’s voting public?

How does that accurately reflect viewer sentiment in 49 other states? Like it or hate it, the electoral college already accomplishes what this misguided attempt tries to claim. Without it New York, Texas, California and Florida would decide elections for the rest of the country.

Besides, the supporters of Amendment 36 have yet to discover one side of truth and then stick to it. Even Bush and, occasionally Kerry, know how to do that.

Especially when a casual visit to AllVotesMatter.com is ridiculously telling. It fails, of course, to emphasize Californian J. Jorge Klor de Alva’s involvement. The multimillionaire, who has yet to comment on his motivations or even the amendment itself, dreamed up the idea but didn’t dare attempt it in his home state. After all, California’s 55 electoral votes, even if divided favorably to Kerry, would still ultimately end up an advantage to Bush. Colorado, with a prior case law establishing a loophole in the state constitution for a reinterpretation of the electoral voting and only nine electoral votes, was thus the perfect state for him to choose as his guinea pig.

To appeal to so-called progressive voters, the front page of the Web site makes it clear it’s Sane People v. Those Damn Bush Supporters Who Oppose All Which Is Good. “Bush Pioneers Rally Against 36,” read one headline. “Opponents of Amendment 36 have filed another report with the secretary of state, and it seems they have friends in high places in the Republican Party,” the hypocritical story continues. What do they care? They’re not based in Colorado anyway.

Make no mistake, Amendment 36 has nothing to do with a donkey and an elephant. In fact, the conservative Rocky Mountain News and the liberal Boulder Daily Camera and Denver Post, all of whom often disagree just to disagree, urged voters not to allow it to pass. According to the Web site No36.org, the only local paper supporting it is a daily in Florida.

How’s that for irony?

Notably, AllVotesMatter.com makes a virtual field day of its two dozen bipartisan supporters, but fails to mention that its detractors include many of the state’s prominent politicians, such as Gov. Bill Owens and 15 of the 16 Democrat and Republican candidates currently running for office in our state. All of whom don’t hesitate to say so, as opposed to AllVotesMatter.com acknowledging unnamed, confidential supporters.

Because those in opposition are, as any educated voter should be, Coloradoans Against a Really Stupid Idea.