Amendment 36

Since you've raised an economics question, I thought it only fair to raise a legal one. One of the most fascinating, and potentially decisive, political contests going on right now is not between Bush and Kerry, Coors and Salazar, or even two human candidates. It is over Colorado's Amendment 36, the "Make Every Vote Count" initiative. If it passes on November 2, the state will in theory allocate its nine electoral votes on the basis of proportional voting, retroactive to the 2004 election. In 2000, instead of Bush taking all the state's electoral votes, Gore would have siphoned off a few, instantly putting him in the White House. This year, it could have a similar effect, if ratified by the voters and allowed by the courts. As for the first of these factors, the voters are split on the amendment. A TV poll in Colorado on October 8 has 45% in favour of the amendment, 44% against and 12% undecided (MOE 4.5%). Obviously, could go either way. If the election is close this year, and the White House hangs in the balance of the 6-8 electoral vote swing inherent in the passing of Amendment 36, it could be a courtroom drama to rival Florida 2K. There's a great article in the Denver Post on the possible ramifications of passing the amendment. It's worth a read, as it summarizes the legal arguments pretty well. Here are the money quotes:

Amendment 36 is open to challenge on two major legal issues: whether a ballot initiative can change the election law, and whether it can be applied retroactively.

Article II of the Constitution gives states the power of selecting presidential electors in "such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct. As in Bush vs. Gore, the issue at hand is whether to apply the word "Legislature" broadly or narrowly...

John Fortier, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and expert on the Electoral College, thinks retroactivity is a crucial issue. "Are not voters entitled to know what the electoral system is before they cast their votes?" asks Fortier. "Voting for an initiative to change the voting system at the same time as votes are being cast for president arguably violates the due-process clause of the Constitution." Even if a due-process argument does not ultimately prevail, says Fortier, opponents of Amendment 36 could nevertheless use it, and other legal challenges, to tie things up in court and delay the allocation of Colorado's electoral votes past the federally mandated deadlines.

The article also predicts that given the legal precedent of the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision, if a Bush v. Kerry case gets to the US Supreme Court, it will likely decide in favour of Bush. Colorado typically votes Republican, and as you might imagine, it is the Republicans who are more anxious to defeat the amendment. But this year, a close race between Kerry and Bush in the statewide polls open another tantalizing possibility: what if Kerry wins the state AND the amendment passes?