Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, Jan. 23, on making over the Electoral College:
If you’re a Democrat in Indiana or a Republican in Illinois, it’s fair to ask whether you should bother casting a ballot in the presidential election. Your vote won’t matter thanks to our weird Electoral College system.
Illinois is solidly blue. Indiana is redder than a ripe tomato. They’re not “in play” on the winner-take-all electoral map, so they get ignored during presidential campaigns as foregone conclusions. Florida, on the other hand, can swing either way, thus getting a ton of attention.
The Electoral College was designed to force candidates to pay attention to the entire country. But that’s not what’s happening. In fact, the country’s most populous states - Texas, New York and California - are among those written off as either can’t-win or can’t-lose.
“The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president,” former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said in 2015. “Twelve states are.”
He was right. In 2016, after the party conventions, 94 percent of presidential campaign events were held in 12 battleground states, according to National Popular Vote, Inc. Thirty-eight states were ignored.
Aside from deviating from the “one man one vote” precept of voter equality, the Electoral College distorts presidential campaigns in other ways. It forces candidates to pander to the parochial needs of swing states. So corn growers in Iowa or steelworkers in Pennsylvania or elderly voters in Florida are courted personally by candidates while the rest of us watch on TV.
Eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote would be a cumbersome undertaking because it would require amending the U.S. Constitution. Plus it would “federalize” elections.
But there’s a way to preserve the Electoral College’s constitutional origins (granting states the sole authority to appoint electors) and address voting equality, thus making the entire country relevant.
The idea is for states to band together to make sure the presidential candidate who receives the highest national popular vote wins the election. As we know, presidents can lose the popular vote but still win the 270 electoral votes needed to assume the highest office in the land.
The National Popular Vote interstate compact would eliminate this perversion. Compact members pledge their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote. The compact would go into effect when enough states totaling 270 electoral votes join the compact. So far, 11 states and the District of Columbia are in the compact with a total of 172 votes.
Colorado - and its nine electoral votes - can join the compact. Senate Bill 42, sponsored by state Sen. Mike Foote, D-Boulder, will be debated in the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee today and we hope that proponents can quell fears of a perceived partisan advantage.
National Popular Vote, Inc. has broken down the numbers and they’re remarkably even. The largest 100 cities have one-sixth of the U.S. population and they vote 63 percent Democratic. Rural areas contain one-sixth of the population and they vote 63 percent Republican. The remaining two-thirds of the country live in the suburbs and are evenly divided politically. So there shouldn’t be an urban power grab.
In fact, Saul Anuzis of the Republican National Committee wrote that Republicans “need” the compact, citing what he believes to be the center-right nature of the American electorate.
This compact idea isn’t new. It passed in the Colorado Senate in 2006 and 2007 with bipartisan support and passed in the Colorado House in 2009. A diverse group of politicians, including Newt Gingrich, Tom Tancredo, Bernie Sanders and Howard Dean endorse the idea.
We had to overcome our initial skepticism, but we like it, too.
Editorial: https://bit.ly/2R9I1po
___
The Denver Post, Jan. 21, on Polis hitting an education home run, but forgetting about roads:
There are no more excuses; Gov. Jared Polis cut through them all in his first week in office.
For years Colorado lawmakers have paid lip-service to early childhood education but refused to put additional dollars to the single, most-effective way to ensure our youngest learners are getting the start they need regardless of zip code or socioeconomic status.
We understand that it’s expensive to provide an extra half-day of school to every kindergartner in the state - $227 million according to Polis’ budget proposal that he released Tuesday. But, Colorado lawmakers should oblige this optimistic new leader and fund full-day kindergarten with part of the more than $1.33 billion windfall in the 2020 budget forecast. We can think of no better investment for the next generation of Coloradans.
The brilliance of Polis’ push for full-day kindergarten is that he’ll not only be providing many hours of extra instructional time for Colorado’s five- and six-year-olds, he’ll be able to eliminate the state-wide waiting lists of at-risk students for preschool slots.
See, in the absence of funding for kindergarten, some districts chose to spend fungible state dollars on kindergarten tuition assistance for low-income children. Those state dollars will now be used for preschool slots across the state. Polis estimated it’ll be enough to fund preschool for 5,100 four-year-olds. But he didn’t stop there, asking for $13 million for about 3,000 more preschool slots. Polis told us that should be enough to eliminate the waiting lists for at-risk students in districts across the state.
Bravo.
Polis needs help, however, from the powerful members of the Joint Budget Committee who are actually responsible for crafting the budget. The six members, four Democrats and two Republicans, will consider competing needs from all state agencies and Sen. Dominick Moreno, D-Commerce City, was spot on with his concerns.
“We’ve heard loud and clear from our constituents that they are tired of sitting in traffic,” he told Denver Post reporter Anna Staver. “They want better infrastructure.”
That’s been the refrain of Republicans in the General Assembly for the past three years; “all new revenue should go to roads.” It was our refrain last year too.
We’d prefer a dedicated revenue stream to fund the billions of dollars needed for transportation investments, but after voters defeated two tax increases in November, we strongly suggest lawmakers not hold their breaths for new revenue. Indeed, it would be politically shrewd to find more than the required $200 million for transportation this year.
We’ve got a few, humble, suggestions.
If Hickenlooper’s budget proposal with Polis’ addendum are accepted, education funding will grow by an incredible $713 million in 2020. Some of that increase is required ($261 million under Amendment 23); some is prudent ($240 million for full-day kindergarten and preschool), and some is overdue ($77 million to pay down the negative factor).
But some should be foregone in lieu of investment in roads: ($25.7 million to help schools start their full-day kindergarten programs, $92 million for the education rainy day fund, $10 million for professional development, $6 million in incentives for rural teachers, $2 million for additional “data driven” programs).
That adds up to $135.7 million.
Then there’s another $90 million earmarked for the rainy day fund.
We think Colorado drivers would agree that we’ve got rainy-day conditions on our roads.
Editorial: https://dpo.st/2FWdKs3
___
Greeley Tribune, Jan. 19, on Colorado Supreme Court making the right decision in oil and gas case:
One of the most important industries in Colorado and Weld County recently received a significant victory.
It came when the Colorado Supreme Court reversed a Court of Appeals ruling that would have required the state to consider public health and the environment before issuing drilling permits.
The court overturned the lower court’s ruling in a case that began in 2013 when a Boulder teenager, backed by out-of-state advocacy groups, asked the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission - the agency that approves permits to oil and gas operators - to allow drilling only when “the best available science demonstrates, and an independent, third-party organization confirms, that drilling can occur in a manner that does not cumulatively, with other actions, impair Colorado’s atmosphere, water, wildlife, and land resources, does not adversely impact human health, and does not contribute to climate change.”
The Supreme Court ruled Monday the COGCC was right not to consider such a rule.
“This case has dragged on for over five years, and it’s time to focus on uniting to encourage energy development in the United States, and, specifically, in Colorado,” said Colorado Oil and Gas Association spokeswoman Tracee Bentley. “We are confident in Colorado’s energy future and the ability of the Colorado natural gas and oil industry’s ability to continue to reshape the global energy balance, fueling an American manufacturing revival and leading the world in environmental progress.”
We agree. Of course, like everyone, we think health, safety and our environment are important. And we think the state must intelligently use its regulatory power to protect those things. That’s true not just of oil and gas but of any activity with the power to harm.
Still, Colorado already has the most stringent regulatory regime for the energy industry of any state in the nation. More importantly, state leaders have shown the ability to bring all stakeholders together to craft intelligent regulations that do protect our health, safety and environment while also allowing the oil and gas industry to flourish.
The most recent example came earlier this year when new rules were created to ensure drilling operations stayed a safe distance from things like playgrounds and sports facilities. The rules came as the result of a process that brought industry leaders together with advocacy groups and other stakeholders.
To be sure, there are some who would seek to use concerns about health and safety to drive regulations to the point they would effectively make it impossible for the industry to operate in our state. That’s not sound public policy.
Indeed, we think a great deal already has been done to regulate the industry and ensure it operates as safely and as responsibly as possible. The industry itself also has done much toward these ends.
In fact, in the wake of Proposition 112, which would have effectively banned oil and gas development in the state if it had passed, along with the host of regulations already in place, the industry has undergone a period of great flux in our state. We think it’s time for some regulatory stability.
Of course, oil and gas drilling comes with risk, as do many other forms of human endeavor. But it also creates good-paying jobs and provides a product all of us use every day.
Editorial: https://bit.ly/2RMuOYX
Please read our comment policy before commenting.