More on 36

David Harsanyi makes a great case for defeating Amendment 36 in this morning's DP:

The activists who want to radically change the way we elect the president make it sound like a matter of common sense.

They'll tell you that changing the current electoral process will simply "make every vote count." That it's a much "fairer" way to count the votes than the current "winner take all" system.

Don't fall for it.

The conniving rhetoric of Amendment 36 and its proponents masks a simple, irrefutable point: It would dilute Colorado's already faint voice in the presidential contest and make us the lone state to allocate electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote.

He continues:

And were Amendment 36 advocates calling and moving for a direct popular vote nationwide, a legitimate debate about the pros and cons of direct democracy could ensue.

But it's not about that, either.

Klor de Alva and his group only typify the shortsighted, win-at-all-costs character of this year's presidential race. The question now is, will the Democratic Party in Colorado follow his lead?

Shortsighted indeed. Check out this post by Joshua at View From a Height:

When I asked him (Democratic State Senator Ron Tupa (D-Boulder))specifically about what happens after the next reapportionment, if we get 10 electoral votes, he said he didn't know what the formula required, that he "didn't think that anyone there had thought this thing through that far, and that it would be at least 10 years before that happened." (Hint: 2012 - 2004 = 8.) That's thinking ahead.