If state Rep. Wendy Jaquet can find enough support--and that's a big if in the Republican-controlled Idaho Legislature--she proposes ending the winner-take-all formula for apportioning the state's four electoral votes.
Jaquet's legislation would divvy up the four votes based on percentages of the popular vote won by contending presidential candidates.
Instead of all four Idaho electoral votes automatically going to President Bush in this year's election, he would've received three on the strength of winning 68 percent (or about three-fourths) of the popular vote, and Sen. John Kerry would've received one for capturing 30 percent.
Jaquet, D-Ketchum and House minority leader, found bipartisan grumbling about the winner-take-all formula when she campaigned around the state this year. The idea for change came as the result of gripes she heard from Republicans and Democrats.
There's no fuss or muss with making this change. The state Legislature can do it without a constitutional amendment.
The Republican majority shouldn't reject Rep. Jaquet's proposal out of hand. It would benefit not only the state at large, but also both major political parties.
Presidential candidates with commanding leads could no longer assume they'd win all the votes by simply getting a majority vote. They'd have to campaign in Idaho to win all four electoral votes.
Voters would profit by the candidates and their surrogates being compelled to convince them of their willingness and ability to cope with voters' concerns.
On election nights, the electoral vote tally could be far narrower and a more accurate reflection of Idaho's majority and minority.
Colorado voters rejected the idea of proportional electoral votes on Nov. 2 for weak arguments--that the state's nine electoral votes predictably would split 5-4 if apportioned, so only one electoral vote would really be up for grabs, thus not enough to keep presidential candidates interested in Colorado.
Only two states, Nebraska and Maine, have apportioning formulas.
Western states such as Idaho are now in the vanguard of change--its population is exploding, its economic base is expanding and changing in character, its popularity for new residents is forcing rethinking about public policies.
What better time and in what better way for Idaho to show its appetite for being a leader than providing voters a chance to show future presidential candidates that the state and its four electoral votes can't be taken for granted and must be won the hard way?
