Colorado Proposal Could Throw Election To Kerry
by Gary D. Halbert
August 24, 2004


IN THIS ISSUE:

1. The Colorado “Electoral College Reform Initiative�
2. Colorado Initiative Could Backfire On The Democrats
3. Why The Colorado “Split-Vote� Idea Is A Bad One
4. Handicapping The Republican National Convention
5. Why The Swift Boat Controversy Won’t Go Away
6. There Is Another “Gary Halbert� Out There



Introduction

The presidential election remains a statistical dead-heat. Since I last
handicapped the state-by-state polls on July 6, John Kerry has improved his
standing, and most of the so-called “blue states� are now comfortably in
his corner. President Bush, meanwhile, has most of the so-called “red
states� solidly in his camp. Most politicos now believe the election will
once again come down to just one or two states – probably Florida and/or
Ohio.

However, the state of COLORADO is considering changing its Electoral College
rules from a “winner-take-all� system to a “split-vote� which would
allocate its nine Electoral College votes to both candidates based on the
popular vote in the state. Is this important? You bet. If CO had such a
system in place in 2000, Al Gore would be President today!

The citizens of CO will vote on this new Electoral College initiative on
November 2, and if it passes, it will be retroactive to the 2004 presidential
election. As you might expect, the Democrats are behind this initiative.
I’ll explain how it works below, and how it could actually backfire on Kerry.


We’ll also preview the Republican National Convention and ponder whether
President Bush will get a meaningful convention bounce in the polls. We also
look into the Swift Boat controversy which is dominating the presidential
campaign as this is written. Clearly, someone is not telling the truth, but
the question is, which side?

Colorado Electoral College Reform Initiative

On July 30, a “citizens group� submitted 130,000 signatures to CO’s
Secretary of State demanding that the initiative to change the way the
state’s Electoral College votes are awarded be placed on the November ballot.
Unless most of the signatures are bogus (only 67,000 are required), the
initiative will be on the CO ballot, and CO voters will decide whether to
change the system to a split-vote or leave it winner-take-all as it is now.
All other states – except Maine and Nebraska – have the winner-take-all
system for the Electoral College.

This new (and suspicious) CO initiative has national implications. As noted
above, if it had been in effect four years ago, Al Gore would be president.
And if it goes into effect beginning on November 2, it could decide this
year’s race as well. In 2000, because George W. Bush won 51% of CO’s vote,
he therefore earned all eight of the state’s Electoral votes. Under the
system proposed in the new initiative, Bush would have received only five
electoral votes in 2000, and Gore would have gotten three. That would have
changed the national Electoral College vote 271-266 in favor of Bush to 269-268
in favor of Gore. This year, CO has nine Electoral votes.

It shouldn't come as a surprise, then, that the CO election effort has
Democratic fingerprints all over it. The campaign spokesman for the
“citizens group� promoting the effort is Rick Ridder, who was also campaign
manager for Howard Dean’s presidential run. He calls the electoral reform
“a multi-partisan effort,� claiming that 20% of the campaign’s signatures
are from Republicans. On the other hand, GOP state chairman Ted Halaby says
the initiative “just doesn't pass the smell test.� Governor Bill Owens
said, “If that passes, Colorado will cease to be a factor in any presidential
campaign in the future.� He makes a good point as I will explain below.

President Bush has been ahead in the CO polls for most of this year. So, the
Democrats who collected the signatures necessary to get the initiative on the
ballot in November obviously had in mind claiming some of CO’s nine Electoral
votes for John Kerry. If the initiative passes, the popular vote winner would
get five votes, while the loser would get four (assuming the race is fairly
close). In a national race this close, a swing of 4-5 Electoral votes could
easily decide the ultimate outcome.




How The CO Initiative Could Backfire On The Democrats

Let’s start by assuming that Kerry wins the same 20 states that Gore carried
four years ago. That leaves him with 260 votes in the Electoral College, to
Bush’s 278 (assuming Bush wins his same states this time around). Now,
let’s assume that Kerry adds New Hampshire to his column, which is another
four electoral votes, and the count would then be 274-264 in favor of Bush. If
we assume Kerry wins CO and its nine Electoral votes, he would win the
presidency, 273-265. But not if the reform initiative passes.

If the reform initiative passes, instead of the winner-take-all nine votes,
Kerry would receive only five electoral votes to Bush’s four (assuming Ralph
Nader doesn’t pick up one electoral vote in CO). That could evenly divide
the Electoral College at 269-269, leaving the House of Representatives to break
the tie. As the House is likely to remain in GOP hands, Bush likely gets a
second term and Democrats would claim that Bush stole the election for another
four years.

Don’t think the Democrats haven’t thought about this possibility. In
fact, while they are pushing hard to get the initiative on the ballot, they are
also preparing to challenge it legally – IF it doesn’t work out in their
favor (ie- Kerry wins). Here’s how. The initiative specifically asserts
that it applies “retroactively� to the 2004 election. Opponents have
claimed that the initiative violates provisions in the state constitution that
prohibit retroactive legislation. The Democrats, on the other hand, say they
have found case law that supports some retroactive legislation.

If the initiative passes, and Kerry wins the presidency as a result of it, the
supporters will make their case for the initiative’s retroactivity to the
2004 election. If it backfires, and costs Kerry the election, expect them to
join the opponents in trying to get the initiative overturned, or at least
postponed until the 2008 election. What else is new? In fairness, I would
expect the Republicans to attack the initiative as well, if it costs Bush the
election.

CO Initiative Has National Implications

There are several possible scenarios whereby the CO initiative, assuming it
passes, could decide the election. There are several possible outcomes,
depending on which states go for Bush and which for Kerry, where a 4-5 vote
swing in the Electoral vote could decide the election (assuming the initiative
isn’t overturned or postponed to 2008 by the loser).

However, if the initiative passes in CO, it could have broader and more
long-term issues for presidential politics. Specifically, what if several (or
more) other states decide to adopt such a split-vote in the Electoral College?
For example, let’s look at what would happen if the five largest Electoral
states were to adopt the CO split-vote system (using the vote percentages for
Gore in 2000 for Kerry this year and the 2000 percentages for Bush):

State
Winner-Take All
Colorado Split-Vote

California
55
Kerry 29 - 26 Bush

Texas
34
Bush 20 - 14 Kerry

New York
31
Kerry 20 - 11 Bush

Florida
27
Kerry 14 - 13 Bush

Illinois
21
Kerry 12 - 9 Bush


*Source: The Weekly Standard

This is NOT a pretty picture for the Democrats! In this scenario, Bush gains
45 Electoral votes, and Kerry loses 45. Assuming that California, New York,
Florida and Illinois (or Pennsylvania, also 21 votes) continue to vote for
Democrats, this split-vote arrangement would be a disaster for the Democrats.

I assume the Democrat leadership has thought about this, but you never know.
There are many that would stop at nothing to see Bush defeated this November.

Why The Split-Vote Idea Is A Bad One

The split-vote initiative in CO is a BAD idea. The Electoral College is not
some 18th century anachronism. If the proposed CO system had been used
nationally in 1992, Bill Clinton would have had just 236 Electoral votes, and
the House of Representatives would have had to decide who became the president.
The same would have been true in 1968 and 1948.

While there have been three times in our history when the winner of the popular
vote did not win the Electoral College, it has served our nation very well for
many, many years. Political scientist Judith Best notes that the Electoral
vote system, combined with the winner-take-all allocation, creates a
“distribution condition.� What does this mean? Candidates cannot simply
pile up votes in the largest states and ignore the others. Because of the
Electoral College, they must win in many states, and this insures that they
travel and campaign all across the country.

The Electoral College has also served to prevent potentially dangerous factions
and special interest groups – racial, religious, labor, economic, the rich,
the poor, etc., etc. – from uniting their votes across state lines. In the
winner-take-all system, they must concentrate their efforts in their home state
only, for the most part.

Yet even with the Electoral College, this may be changing in light of the
enormously flawed campaign reform legislation. McCain-Feingold, as you may
recall, was supposed to be the end-all to unlimited campaign financing. No
more “soft money,� we were told. But it wasn’t, just as I told my
clients and subscribers when it was passed into law.

In fact, McCain-Feingold paved the way for today’s huge “527� non-profit
organizations that are funneling hundreds of millions of dollars into the Kerry
campaign (and a fraction of that into the Bush campaign). I will have another
weekly E-Letter soon on the huge imbalance of 527 money flowing to Kerry versus
Bush. Prepare to be surprised.

My Advice To Colorado Voters – Just Say No

Finally, here’s my advice to Colorado voters: Just say NO to the split-vote
referendum. Here’s why. Currently, CO is one of the so-called
“battleground states,� at least this year. Both Bush and Kerry have made
multiple campaign visits to CO in this election season, hoping to lock up your
nine Electoral votes.

Currently, the polls show that Bush and Kerry are in a dead-heat in your state.
So, it is safe to assume that they will be back in CO campaigning between now
and November 2. But consider what will happen if you pass the split-vote
initiative in November.

If you pass it, your state will become a ONE Electoral vote state, instead of a
NINE Electoral vote state. Win or lose, one candidate automatically will get
FIVE votes, and the other will get FOUR votes, in most elections. So, you
become a ONE-VOTE state in most elections. Who will come see you then?
Probably no one.
The leading Democrats in CO may be willing to pass the split-vote initiative
this year, just because they will do anything to defeat Bush. But if they do,
they will sadly ignore the longer-term implications.

There are those who believe this trend could spread to other states, if CO
passes it this November. Maybe so. As I illustrated above, this could
backfire on the Democrats this year, should Kerry win CO, and it could be very
positive for Republicans in 2008 and beyond. But in the long-run, it is bad
news for the American political process. Let’s hope the good people of
Colorado reject this latest political ploy to get rid of George W. Bush at any
cost.

The Republican Convention

The Republican National Convention will begin next Monday (August 30) in New
York at Madison Square Garden. This is an outstanding choice of locations, in
my opinion, as opposed to the Dems’ convention in Boston. Yet it remains to
be seen if the Republicans’ convention will be as much of a non-event as the
Democrats’ convention last month.

The Democrats had Ron Reagan as their surprise speaker as a slap at the
Republicans. The Republicans, not to be outdone, will have conservative
Democratic Senator Zell Miller from Georgia. He will deliver the Republican
convention’s keynote address on Wednesday September 1 - a role he played
before in New York as a keynote speaker at the 1992 Democratic convention that
nominated Bill Clinton.

Other featured speakers at the Republican Convention will be: Michael
Bloomberg, mayor of New York; Rudi Giuliani, former mayor of New York; Senator
John McCain; First Lady Laura Bush; CA governor Arnold Schwarzenegger; New York
governor George Pataki; and of course, Vice President Cheney and President
Bush.

It remains to be seen if Bush can get a solid convention bounce next week. The
major media networks have planned the same 3-4 hours of prime-time coverage for
the Republican convention as they did for the Democrats. It remains to be seen
if the Republicans draw more viewers than the dreadful ratings during the
Dem’s convention.

Maybe President Bush gets a bounce of 2-5 points after the RNC convention, much
like Kerry got, if all goes well next week. Maybe Bush pulls a couple of
points ahead in the national polls in the week or two after the convention.
And then, most likely, it’s back to a neck-and-neck race. I do hear that
the Bush campaign is set to launch a new round of potentially very damaging ads
about Kerry’s record in the Senate. Unlike the Swift Boat controversy,
Kerry’s votes (and lack of votes/no-shows) in the Senate are indisputable;
they are public record.




The Swift Boat Controversy

By now, you’ve no doubt heard about the Swift Boat controversy. The accounts
of what happened over 30 years ago in Vietnam are so different that one side or
the other has to be lying. The Swift Boat Vets claim that Kerry fled the scene
when the boats came under fire, and returned only after the firefight ended to
rescue Jim Rassmann from the Bay Hap River. The Vets claim Kerry was not under
fire at the time of the rescue. Kerry maintains that they were under fire.

Kerry has claimed frequently over the years that he spent Christmas Eve of 1968
inside the border of Cambodia under hostile fire. The Swift Boat Vets also
challenge this story, and the Kerry campaign has backed off this claim,
suggesting that Kerry was at least near Cambodia at the time.

I don’t pretend to know who is telling the truth. Yet with over 290 Vietnam
veterans signing onto the Swift Boat Vets’ challenge of the events, this
controversy has mushroomed out of control at this point. And needlessly so, in
my opinion. Kerry and his advisors chose to make his Vietnam record the
centerpiece of their campaign. They have avoided running on Kerry’s 19-year
record as a Senator. You would think they would have known that some of these
Vietnam vets were going to surface and challenge Kerry’s service record and
his accounts of events.

The Kerry campaign’s reactions to the Swift Boat Vets have been loud,
vitriolic and very defensive. They have tried to get the publisher of John
O’Neill’s book “Unfit To Command� to recall the books from bookstores.
Now they are filing a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission,
demanding that the Swift Boat ads be banned. For many Americans, all of this
sounds like so much whining.

Feeding the controversy even further, the Kerry campaign claims that President
Bush and Karl Rove are in cahoots with the Swift Boat Vets. As a result of
their dramatic reactions, this controversy continues to be front-page news.

Kerry should have dismissed the Swift Boat Vets once, reminded Americans that
President Bush has praised his service in Vietnam, and then ignored them.
But for whatever reason, the Kerry campaign chose to fight this thing tooth and
nail, and so it continues to rage on. It is hurting Kerry in the polls. You
have to wonder who is giving him advice on this one.

The Other “Gary Halbert�

I have struggled for years to combat the confusion between myself and the
“other� Gary Halbert, one Gary “C.� Halbert, who also runs in certain
investment circles. I’m Gary “ D.� Halbert and am NO relation to him. I
have never even met him.

If you search Google for “Gary Halbert� you will not find a link to me
until you get over 50-DEEP into the Gary Halbert links; the previous links are
all about Gary C. Halbert, who reportedly went to prison in the ‘80s for mail
fraud. As I reported last year, he is back in trouble again.

On September 23 last year, the Securities & Exchange Commission announced that
it had initiated litigation against Gary C. Halbert, his son, Bond Halbert, and
their company for “possible violations of the federal securities laws�
related to a stock trading system they were promoting. Just as a reminder,
here is the SEC press release:

QUOTE: “U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Litigation Release No. 18359 / September 23, 2003

SEC Files Subpoena Enforcement Action against Gary C. Halbert, Cherrywood
Publishing, Inc. and Others

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Gary C. Halbert, et al. (United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 03-MBD-10284-RWZ)

The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed an action in Massachusetts
federal court to enforce investigative subpoenas against Gary C. Halbert, Bond
Halbert, Cherrywood Publishing, Inc. ("Cherrywood"), and John Doe (a/k/a
Cherrywood's Keeper of Records"). The Commission alleges in its application
filed with the court that Gary C. Halbert, Bond Halbert, Cherrywood, and
Cherrywood's Keeper of Records failed to comply with administrative subpoenas
requiring them to produce documents and testify in connection with an
investigation to determine whether they and others may have violated the
antifraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940. In its application and supporting papers, the Commission
alleges that, on August 12, 2003, the Commission issued a formal order of
private investigation entitled In the Matter of Cherrywood Publishing, Inc.,
File No. B-01967 ("Formal Order"). The Formal Order directed the Commission
staff to undertake a private investigation to determine if there were
violations of the federal securities laws. According to the Commission's court
papers, the Commission staff is investigating possible material false
statements concerning a stock trading system made by or on behalf of Gary C.
Halbert and Cherrywood in newspaper advertisements that appeared in USA Today
and on a website purportedly operated by Gary C. Halbert. According to the
application, the Commission staff issued subpoenas to Gary C. Halbert, Bond
Halbert, Cherrywood, and Cherrywood's Keeper of Records on August 12, 2003 and
issued a second subpoena to Bond Halbert on August 20, 2003, requiring them to
produce documents and testify concerning matters relevant to the investigation.
As of September 23, 2003, the Commission alleges that the parties have not
produced the responsive documents and have not testified as compelled by the
subpoenas.� END QUOTE.

If you would like to read more about the SEC’s investigation into Gary C.
Halbert, you can click on the following link:

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/app18359.htm

It is interesting reading. In it you will find that Mr. Halbert apparently
left the country last year. I don’t know what has happened since then.

If any of you have wondered if I was the same Gary Halbert, or if I am related
to him, I trust this clears the matter up for you. [Because we get many new
readers and subscribers, I will reprint the clarification above from time to
time.]

Very best regards,


Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES

Why the Colorado initiative is important.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5781897/site/newsweek/

Why we need the Electoral College.
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/...4445-7437r.htm

Long, but good, analysis of the Kerry/VietNam controversy.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...0/004/481yyfvo
..asp?pg=2

Bob Dole challenges Kerry’s Purple Hearts.
http://cl.extm.us/?fe921d70716d047f7...76650c7c761d76

Copyright 2004 Gary D. Halbert.





Reproductions. If you would like to reproduce any of Gary Halbert's E-Letters
or commentary, you must include the source of your quote and the following
email address: . Please write to
and inform us of any reproductions including
where and when the copy will be reproduced.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Notice
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Gary Halbert is president and CEO of ProFutures, Inc. (www.ProFutures.com), a
diversified investment advisory firm located in Austin, Texas. All material
presented herein is believed to be reliable but we cannot attest to its
accuracy. Investment recommendations may change and readers are urged to check
with their investment counselors before making any investment decisions.

Opinions expressed in these reports may change without prior notice. Gary
Halbert and/or the staffs at ProFutures, Inc. and InvestorsInsight may or may
not have investments in any funds, programs or companies cited above.

Communications from InvestorsInsight are intended solely for informational
purposes. Statements made by various authors, advertisers, sponsors and other
contributors do not necessarily reflect the opinions of InvestorsInsight, and
should not be construed as an endorsement by InvestorsInsight, either expressed
or implied. InvestorsInsight is not responsible for typographic errors or other
inaccuracies in the content. ProFutures, Inc. and Gary D. Halbert are not
affiliated with, nor do they endorse, any advertisements contained herein. We
believe the information contained herein to be accurate and reliable. However,
errors may occasionally occur. Therefore, all information and materials are
provided "AS IS" without any warranty of any kind. Past results are not
indicative of future results.

We encourage readers to review our complete legal and privacy statements on our
home page.

InvestorsInsight Publishing, Inc. 14900 Landmark Blvd., Suite #350 Dallas,
Texas 75254