Letters

Gazette, The (Colorado Springs), Aug 18, 2004

COUNTING THE VOTES

Push to change system part of partisan scheme?

This is in response to Nan Stilwagen's letter "Initiative would allow all votes to count," in the Aug. 17 Gazette.

Did Stilwagen move here from California where the same winner- take-all method of electoral-vote allocation is used? A lot of the money for backing the initiative effort in Colorado comes from California. I wonder why there is no initiative effort like ours in that state. Could it be that Democrats backing change under the guise of being "disempowered" want to count all the votes as theirs in California, New York and other more populous states where they have the majority while not allowing Republicans in smaller states, with fewer electoral votes, to do the same?

Changes to electoral voting allocation should not be made on a state by state basis. If it is, every president would be elected by the bigger states, since states with traditional Democrat voting populations will never go along with a change to the winner-take-all system in their states. This has little to do with the voter being empowered and a lot to do with empowering the Democrat Party.

If Democrats such as Stilwagen wish to really effect a change they would agree to support a national effort to modify the electoral process for all states, not just in those states that traditionally vote Republican.

Eric Gustafson

Colorado Springs

Initiative would allow all voters to have a say

Most Coloradans are probably now aware of a choice that will appear on November's ballot to change the way the state allocates its nine electoral votes in the federal election, splitting the votes according to the proportions of the popular vote ("Plan to split up electoral votes going to ballot," Metro, Aug. 16). This change would be a step in the right direction for America's voting system, and I encourage voters of all political parties to approve this proposal in order to allow Colorado's effect on this election to reflect its voters' choices more accurately. This new system would help us to avoid a situation in which the election winner does not also receive the majority of the popular votes.

Contrary to complaints by proposal opponent Katy Atkinson, fairly allocating Colorado's electoral votes would not make Colorado "the Florida of 2004." Florida's problem lay in not counting votes accurately, just the opposite of the purpose of Colorado's proposal. Giving all nine votes to the candidate toward whom the state merely leaned, however, would be more likely to attract the jokes she fears.

I was curious to hear a reason behind Atkinson's claim that this would be a "really stupid idea," but unfortunately, vague superlatives were all she had to offer, leaving one to only guess. Could it be that opponents to the change are simply afraid of losing the Republican dominance of Colorado in elections?

Samantha Janci

Colorado Springs

BEATING UP BRUCE

Portrait of bullying candidate an undeserved rap

Following the primary election victory of Douglas Bruce, The Gazette recycled his opponent's claim as a news story, saying Bruce "can't get along." The next day, Bruce's discussion of whether the county should put another de-TABORing attempt on the ballot became a printed implication of disruption. That same day's Gazette contained an allegation from a disgruntled foe, that Bruce had "raised his voice" at the county fair ("Run-in with Bruce counters civility pledge," Letters, Aug. 13).

I witnessed that incident. Bruce showed great restraint while his opponent and her supporters attempted to stand between him and the public and interrupted his conversation with citizens. The party chairman and fair booth organizer had to force them to stop harassing Bruce.

Bruce ran a dignified campaign based on factual comparisons of the two candidates' public records. He never called his opponent a "slumlord," "criminal," "loser," "tax evader," a purveyor of "raw sewage" and worse. His civility was one reason I voted for him.

Nell Porter

Colorado Springs

PROS AND CONS

Olympic basketball team forgets the fundamentals

I listened to the U.S. basketball team getting its lunch handed to it by Puerto Rico.

The U.S. team lacks fundamentals. For years the U.S. produced very good, fundamentally sound basketball players. Nowadays it's all about athleticism, but not skills. The thunderous dunks, the highlight alley oop and the no-look pass are what people want to see. One only has to watch an NBA game to see how far the U.S. has fallen. Poor shooting, poor free-throw shooting, a lack of defense or ineptitude by the offense prevail.

Also, there is no cohesiveness to this team. Multi-million dollar salaries lead to big egos and selfishness. The last time a basketball squad from the U.S. played together as a team was probably the first (and only) real Dream Team in 1992. Team members put aside egos and contracts for their country.

They should bring back the college players. There are no huge contracts. There will be enough time after "March Madness" to bring a team together and begin practicing to develop a bond and a "team first" concept. College coaches and players are more used to seeing the zone defenses the other countries are employing to expose the U.S. team's poor shooting.