"Restoring Colorado" ballot initiative?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gman

I guess it depends on which state house controls the purse strings. I understand the responsibilities of the Fed house & senate, but I'm not so familiar with this state's legislative break down.

---

I'm with you here. On the surface this sounds like a damn good idea. Have a balance between population vote and area vote (probably not the best wording but I bet you get what I mean) just like the Feds with the Senate and House.

If it should be the House or Senate at the State level is still murky to me. Frankly I'm a little embarrassed that I don't know the details here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Circuits

In the federal system, the more numerous house is the one which represents per population, the inverse of the proposed system.

I'd be OK if every county got an equal number of senators, but the reps were properly proportioned by population - which is exactly how the federal system does it.

To make the more numerous house based on geographic division rather than population distribution is going the wrong way, IMO.

---

But then there would be 64 Senators (64 counties). Cool with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GilpinGuy

But then there would be 64 Senators (64 counties). Cool with that?

---

You'd have to amp up the house to at least twice that number to maintain balance. I'm not cool with increasing the size of government in general, so I'd instead propose an alternate system making me dictator-for-life of Colorado. I hereby promise I'll bitch-slap libs regularly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GilpinGuy

But then there would be 64 Senators (64 counties). Cool with that?

---

Or you could have 128 of 'em. Regardless.... I would be ok with this approach on the broad strokes.

Circuits 2016! [Beer]

Based solely on the bitch-slapping. (One issue voter here [LOL])

I don't have a cite handy, being on my phone at work, but there's a SCOTUS decision from a few decades ago, specifically barring what this initiative hopes to accomplish. IIRC (spqrzilla?) apportioning state legislative seats on anything but population is a failure to guarantee a republican form of government in that state, and there might have been something about equal protection in there as well.

It's not a bad idea, but I don't see it standing even if it does pass.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by centrarchidae

I don't have a cite handy, being on my phone at work, but there's a SCOTUS decision from a few decades ago, specifically barring what this initiative hopes to accomplish. IIRC (spqrzilla?) apportioning state legislative seats on anything but population is a failure to guarantee a republican form of government in that state, and there might have been something about equal protection in there as well.

It's not a bad idea, but I don't see it standing even if it does pass.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

---

i have heard others who are way smarter than me cite this same decision and deem it not apples to oranges. From what I heard (Rosen, etc.) this isn't the same thing as that case and it would be a stretch for it fail the smell test. IIRC the original case was based on some redistricing due to race. I'll have to look it up...