"Restoring Colorado" ballot initiative?

This is an interesting idea. What do you guys think?

Restoring Colorado

From their website:

Our mission is to restore fair representation for ALL Coloradans. Currently, both the House and the Senate in the Colorado legislature are based on population. This is in direct contrast to the way the U.S. Congress is determined, where one body, the Senate, is based on land area (two Senators per state, regardless of size) and the other body, the House, is based on population. The federal model provides a natural balance between large and small states and has been in place since the inception of our Republic.

Our proposal is to restructure the Colorado State legislature with a model similar to the federal model. One chamber (the House) would be based on land area. Each county in the state would have its own representative, reducing the size of the House from 65 to 64 Representatives. The other chamber (the Senate) would remain based on population, with 35 State Senators.

Our founding fathers understood that urban and rural interests would collide without a mechanism to compel cooperation. Simply put, larger urban interests have enough votes to pass legislation without the need for any votes from smaller rural communities. This leads to what is known as the tyranny of the majority. Larger urban areas can pass legislation unfavorable to smaller communities. It also means tax revenues collected from smaller rural communities can be spent on projects in urban areas. This happens in communities like those that produce energy and agricultural products as well as those that support tourism, like ski resorts and casinos.

I'd want to see the complete wording, before making a decision. Lots of outside money involved this Nov. Last thing we want is something that looks good the first 3 paragraphs. It's the unseen that causes trouble.
The BG check at gunshows passed because people didn't read the entire bill. Folks thought it was for gunshows. Due to their laziness / failure to read past the first 3 pages ,we're stuck with it. Had they read the entire booklet,.it would have failed. very few people I spoke with didn't understand a gunshow was now 3 or more people in one place..

What is the expected outcome here? From the wording it looks like one less Representative on face value, but will those Reps change based on location?

Like the idea. I would switch the rep part to mirror the Federal way to make it easier to understand and sell. This would mean the Senate would be based on each county representative and the House would be by population. Other than that and not seeing the fine print it is one of the better ideas for the long term. The cities are quickly becoming the ruling voting class and urban does not like guns. If it continues without something like this, we will become another CA or NY.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hound

Like the idea. I would switch the rep part to mirror the Federal way to make it easier to understand and sell. This would mean the Senate would be based on each county representative and the House would be by population. Other than that and not seeing the fine print it is one of the better ideas for the long term. The cities are quickly becoming the ruling voting class and urban does not like guns. If it continues without something like this, we will become another CA or NY.

---

The reason for changing the House instead of the Senate is that it would only change by 1 rep (65 to 64). Changing the Senate would be a much larger change and, presumably, not be as appealing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

What is the expected outcome here? From the wording it looks like one less Representative on face value, but will those Reps change based on location?

---

Yes.

Attachment 46199

Obviously most reps are along the Front Range. Only 13 of 65 are not. One from each County would spread them out considerably.

Sounds like a system with disproportionately high representation for rural counties... which is appealing if you're of a more conservative bent, since cities breed liberalism, but not really a representative government any more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Circuits

Sounds like a system with disproportionately high representation for rural counties... which is appealing if you're of a more conservative bent, since cities breed liberalism, but not really a representative government any more.

---

That argument can be said for the US Senate as well. Wyoming has 2 Senators, just like California. Should WY have the same number as CA since they have such a smaller population?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GilpinGuy

That argument can be said for the US Senate as well. Wyoming has 2 Senators, just like California. Should WY have the same number as CA since they have such a smaller population?

---

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.

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.

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...