Brandon Shaffer’s Electoral College deception

The following was pulled from the old Wrongmont site and appears to be written around 2007.  Unfortunately, most if not all of the hyperlinks are broken as those sites either don’t exist anymore, or the articles were just removed.  But the information is still relevant and helps give full context and perspective on one of the more disturbing activities of State Senator Brandon Shaffer (Dem-Longmont).  Now he wants to be the U.S. Congressman for Longmont.

Question:  Why all of a sudden did Senator Shaffer and the Democrats who so badly wanted to change how Colorado distributed its Electoral College votes drop the idea around the same time it was clear Barack Obama would win Colorado?  Will it come back when it appears a Democrat wont win Colorado?  Of course the answer is it’s all about politics, but you should still pose the question to him.

Wrongmont.Com
Longmont Connection to Electoral College Scam



See updates in highlighted text
This takes a while to set up, bear with me.
I usually only make comments about Longmont and the local community on this website.  When I want to step into the larger state and nationwide issues, it’s usually in the form of a letter to the paper.  But this subject crosses over and is important, and I feel, so far, it hasn’t gotten the needed attention locally.  For the most part, us “political junkie” types are the only ones paying more than a passing interest to this kind of thing.

Some background:  In 2004, there was a Colorado Amendment 36, it would change the way Colorado allocates its Electoral College votes in a presidential election.  Prior to that election I submitted the following to a few papers:


Make Colorado Matter©
Amendment 36, or as it’s called “Make Your Vote Count” from its supporters, has a couple serious flaws with it.  First, unless it’s a landslide vote in the state, the allocation of electoral votes will almost always be 5-4.  That means Colorado will basically be worth 1 electoral vote, less than the District of Columbia and 7 other states that have the minimum 3 electoral votes.  Talk about making your vote completely worthless.  Colorado would be the most ignored state in presidential politics, and that has local and regional ramifications.

The “winner-take-all” concept could be improved on, say, by allocating votes by congressional districts won.  At least that could open the possibility of 7-2 or 6-3 splits, and make politicians pay attention to areas other than Denver and Boulder.  To get an idea of how this might break down, I invite your readers to look at the following page on USA Today’s website http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/map.htm, it shows vote by County unfortunately, and not by District.  But it makes the point that if a candidate can just carry a large city or two, the rural areas can be ignored and the candidate can take the state.  Is that really what we want?  In reality, this amendment should be called “Make Your Vote Count – if you vote a certain way”.

Secondly, and most importantly, ALL of the states would have to use this process to make it fair to ALL voters.  Colorado could become the unfortunate national embarrassment Florida was in 2000, as everyone waits for us to count the votes for and against this amendment, and settle the court challenges sure to follow.  As much as I think ALL states should reform the allocation of electoral votes, or do away with the Electoral College system altogether if that is the feeling of the majority, this amendment smells of partisan politics.  Look again at that County map, especially the West Coast states; it’s obvious who benefits from metropolitan areas deciding for entire states.  At the very least, it’s disingenuous by the amendments backers to claim it’s not partisan.  This is the brainchild of a Brazilian-born Californian using Colorado as his guinea pig.  To use this format for California would be disastrous for his candidate.  It would mean instead of winning all of their 55 electoral votes, it’d be a 28/22/5 split amongst three candidates based on the most recent poll.  Colorado with its mere 9 votes is a safe place to test this idea.

The anti-amendment slogan of “Coloradans Against a Really Stupid Idea”, is negative and, well, stupid.  Is that the best you can come up with?  I’d probably let you use my idea above.

The real winner in a system like this is the candidate that receives fewer votes.  Instead of zero electoral votes, he’d get probably 4.  Colorado is still too close to call, so that could help or hurt either presidential candidate.  This November, send a strong message that votes outside Denver and Boulder should matter.  That we are not guinea pigs for others and their partisan political games.  Regardless of who you are voting for, vote against Amendment 36.  It’s the only way to make your vote really count.


This amendment failed by an almost 2-1 margin.  The voters sent a pretty strong message, or so it seemed.  Fast forward to 2007 and the Majority Leader in the state Senate, Ken Gordon (D) (303)866-3341 ken@kengordon.com http://www.kengordon.com sponsors SB07-46, a bill to once again play games with Colorado’s Electoral College vote allocation.  This time around, it’s a multi-state pact where Colorado would allocate all of its 9 electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of how the state’s residents voted.  This would only take effect if enough states signed on that equaled a majority of the Electoral College votes needed to win an election.  It’s a cute way around amending the U.S. Constitution without actually going through the “hassle” of a national debate to amend it.

Seems Mr. Gordon also sponsored a 2006 version of this bill (SB06-223) which died a needed death.  He was on the Senate Committee on Judiciary, where he brought in some hired guns to speak on behalf of this scam, no dissenting speakers allowed here, and moved that it passed, and voted for it.  A one man constitutional wrecking crew.  If there’s any justice, he came up a wee bit short in his bid for Secretary of State.  Oops, the voters spoke, darn them voters.  All they do is get in the way.

But regardless of how you feel about the idea, the bigger problem, as I see it anyway, is the way these people are trying to go around the voters.  So not only are they attacking the U.S. Constitution, but also democracy and the way this republic has operated, pretty successfully overall I’d say, for over 200 years.

Here’s a follow-up article I wrote that the Daily Times-Call recently ran:


In the article “Electoral College bypass approved”, the AP left out a little, but extremely important factoid.  This scam was attempted in the 2004 election in the guise of Colorado Amendment 36, it lost 65% to 35%, that’s not really very close.  Now, whether you are in favor of such an idea, or which side of the political spectrum you sit, sneaking around the voters like this should never be tolerated.  It’s one thing if our “representatives” were doing just that, representing those who elected them.  It’s another thing altogether to disregard 65% of the voters on a state amendment, and it’s only been 2 years.   Ken Gordon’s statement “It makes every person’s vote, every human being’s vote, equal” sure sounds noble.  So what about all of those people who voted against this scam? They must not be human beings, or not worthy of equal treatment.  Welcome to Colorado’s, and a few other misguided states, version of democracy.  Where, regardless of the voters and that little thing called the U.S. Constitution, it’s the “we know better” mentality that wins out.  Our new governor has a choice to make whether to sign or veto this nonsense.  Let him know what you think, although I thought we did that 2 years ago.


The Longmont Connection
Much to my disappointment, the House sponsor for this bill is Representative Jack Pommer (D) (303)866-2780 jack.pommer.house@state.co.us.  I met and spoke to Mr. Pommer at a candidate forum.  Seemed like a decent enough guy, and he shouldn’t be judged on one issue.  But he obviously feels pretty strongly about it as he’s a sponsor.  I feel pretty strongly about playing games with the will and voice of the voters.  Just because your party has a grip on both houses and the governorship, doesn’t give you the right to pull a fast one on us.  Last years version of this bill, SB06-223, was laid over (means: make dead) by request of the House’s sponsor.  This years sponsor, Mr. Pommer, should follow suit.  No reply to initial email.


Next up, Senator Brandon Shaffer(D) 303-866-5291 brandon@brandonshaffer.com http://www.brandonshaffer.com.  He voted for this bill, not a surprise, nearly every Democrat did.  But it was something else he voted against that bothers me more.  In SB46 there were the following lines:

16 SECTION 2. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds,
17 determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate
18 preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.
What is this garbage?  I have a life, so maybe I don’t know the finer points of legalese when it comes to bills, but this has a funny smell to it.  Then I found the following:
Senator Mitchell moved to amend the Report of the Committee of the Whole to show that the 26 following Mitchell floor amendment, (L.002) to SB 07-046, did pass. Amend printed bill, page 7, strike lines 16 through 18 and substitute the following:
“SECTION 2. Refer to people under referendum. This act shall be submitted to a vote of the registered electors of the state of Colorado at the next biennial regular general election, for their approval or rejection, under the provisions of the referendum as provided for in section 1 of article V of the state constitution, and in article 40 of title 1, Colorado Revised Statutes. Each elector voting at said election and desirous of voting for or against said act shall cast a vote as provided by law either “Yes” or “No” on the proposition: “SHALL THE STATE OF COLORADO ENACT AND ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT AMONG THE STATES TO ELECT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE?” The votes cast for the adoption or rejection of said act shall be canvassed and the result determined in the manner provided by law for the canvassing of votes for representatives in Congress.”.
Summary:  A fellow senator wanted to strike that odd “Safety clause” and bring this to a vote of the people.  Keep in mind, we already voted for something similar to this.  Senator Shaffer voted NO, along with Bacon, Boyd, Fitz-gerald, Gordon, Groff, Hagedorn, Isgar, Keller, Morse, Romer, Sandoval, Schwartz, Takis, Tapia, Tochtrop, Tupa, Veiga, Williams, and Windels – all Democrats.  Not one voted opposite.  This group, in my opinion,  stands for meaningless and questionable language in an already questionable bill, and against the voice of the voters.  They not only want to ignore how you already voted, they want to go about something without giving you a chance to be heard again.
Mr. Shaffer not only voted for SB06-223, last years version of this scam, but also was a co-sponsor!  Form letter reply to initial email.



Longmont’s other representative is Representative Paul Weissmann (D) – (303)866-2920  reppaul@aol.com  http://www.paulinthehouse.com/
Mr. Weissmann is the Chair on the State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee, which is where this bill is right now.  He was on this committee last year as well for SB06-223, which is where the bill died.  So far, Mr. Weissmann has been the only one to respond to initial emails, which I appreciate.



The point is to call or email your representatives.  I’ve made it painfully easy to do with all of their contact info and a brief tour of this subject.  Also, since this is now in a House committee, here are the specific members you need to contact:
Chair:  Weissman / Vice Chair:  Todd
Members:  Cadman, Carroll T, Casso, Gallegos, Jahn, Labuda, Lambert, Liston, Lundberg.  Dems=7 / Reps = 4
There is much more on the internet about this, just do a Google web or news search using “SB46″ or “SB07-46″ or “Colorado Electoral College”.  Here is a link to the Colorado General Assembly website, look for SB07-46 and click on the links involving it.  Here are some links to articles you may or may not find interesting and/or educational.  It’s a story that’s getting state and national attention.  Hopefully I somewhat brought it all together for you.  Now do something with it.



A shout out goes to my friend Chuck who brought it to my attention as it was a topic on the Mike Rosen show on 850 KOA.  If you are still unclear what this all meant, this show can be listened to (after you sign up, which is free) at this link (Select Rosen Replay for 3/12/07 Hours 2 and 3)  It’s well worth a listen for educational purposes no matter what side you sit on this issue.
This is not the first time this idea has come up, and probably won’t be the last.  The two smiling faces above are your representatives, State Senator Brandon Shaffer and State Representative Jack Pommer (the bills co-sponsor).  Mr. Pommer never even responded to my emails (or the Times-Call’s inquiries I’m told), and Mr. Shaffers aide wrote me what was not much more than a condescending form letter.  Credit is given though to State Representative Paul Weissmann, who answered promptly and reasonably.
Here’s the point:  This was a big waste of time and potentially taxpayer dollars (well, not completely potentially, their time is our taxpayer money), and a strong message needs to be sent to knock this nonsense off.  You’d think the repeated NO votes and killings in committee would put an end to this coming up every year, but no.  State Senator Ken Gordon is on this Electoral College destruction crusade, and if our Longmont reps want to go along with him, they will be held accountable.  In the final committee meeting on this bill, Mr. Pommer heard from experts that this bill violates both the Colorado and U.S. Constitution, need to read that again?  Mr. Gordon probably knew this as well, did Mr. Shaffer?  If not, what kind of attorney is this that either doesn’t know the law or will knowingly violate it? And have the gall to not allow voters to have any say on it!  Given all that, Mr. Pommer continued supporting the bill in the meeting until it’s needed death.
Here is a link to the committee report  I will ask each of the three above, and you should as well, to take a hint and pledge to not sponsor or vote for any similar scam like SB46.
If they won’t, then you know all you need to know about how they serve you as your representatives:  Voters, committees, and their repeated messages be damned, we’ll be renegades and do what’s best for our party, not our state or country. Which pledge will it be?

 



Longmont Daily Times-Call
Electoral College bypass approved

Rocky Mountain News
Don’t Neuter Electoral College
Electoral college bill ignites partisan fight
Electoral College dropout

Denver Post
Electoral-vote change gains
Under the dome, 1/19
There’s a lawmaker in my soup
Hands off Electoral College

Boulder Daily Camera
One person, one vote

Grand Junction Daily Sentinel
Cutting Colorado’s clout

The Pueblo Chieftain
Still ill-conceived

Colorado Springs Gazette
Senate OKs bill to make state bypass Electoral College

CBS4 Denver
State Senate backs Bypass Of Electoral College

Denver Daily News
Colorado ignored?

The Independence Institute
Memo to the General Assembly: No means “NO!”

All American Patriots.Com
Colorado Attorney General Urges Colorado Legislature And Governor To Oppose National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

About Chris Rodriguez

Chris is the editor/publisher of LightningRod Blog - as well as founder/editor of Wrongmont, Longmont Advocate, Vote!Longmont, Longmont Politics, the LightningRod Radio Network, as well as being the original Longmont Examiner. Chris is a writer and talker - whether it be blogs, podcasts, music, or public speaking. When he's not heard on Air Traffic radio, he can be heard on his podcasts or seen in the local paper causing trouble.
Tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>