Republicans decry the measure as a Democratic scheme to dilute GOP votes.

"I don't know if it verges on dirty tricks, but it certainly has a bad odor," said state Republican chairman Ted Halaby.

Well, to be fair, there is an element of tactical jujitsu to the proposal (that's the aspect that Kos focuses on in his commentary) but, really, one has to applaud this as potentially a great step forward. If every state would do the same thing (and the Constitution gives the states the power to determine how their electoral votes are apportioned), there would be much less need to abolish the Electoral College through a constitutional amendment, and we'd be much less likely to see presidents elected who did not have popular support. Small states would still have an advantage over large ones (because of the additional 2 votes each state gets over the number determined by population), but the advantage would be minimized, and the Electoral College results would more closely track those of the popular vote.

Certainly, that this is happening in Colorade is a strategic choice, but, frankly, I'd applaud it even if it were happening in California or New York, two Democratic strongholds. Of course, I'd prefer it not happen in this election, but that's a matter of immediate need. In the long run, it's better that it happen, whenever and wherever it occurs.

Update: Thinking about this a little more, I'd like to moderate my position a little. I do think that changes like this are a very good thing, helping to make the system more democratic and representative of the wishes of the people, and I would hope that if Colorado passed such a measure other states would follow suit (perhaps through some kind of cooperative arrangements where GOP & Democratic states instituted proportionate electoral vote allocation in tandem), but I also understand how people could get upset that the rules are being changed in the middle of the games.

The fairest thing, I suppose, would be to pass the measure, but to make it effective for the next presidential election in 2008. Sure, I know that if it was the GOP making such a move, they wouldn't give a second thought to the fairness of pulling the rug out of their opponents, and I recognize that it's quite a good tactical move even trying to pass such a measure in this cycle, but I would hate to see Electoral College reform become completely embroiled in partisan concerns and not have other states institute similar changes because of that.

(In any event, just think of the GOP lawsuits if the measure passes, and Bush wins a plurality of the vote in Colorado, but has to give up some e.v.'s to Kerry -- it would probably get up to the Supreme Court tout de suite, and we'd see some more contortions from the SCOTUS 5 to justify overturning the measure. Hoepfully the entire election wouldn't be hanging in the balance, but with things so tight, it's not impossible that it would be.)

There's an interesting discussion of the ramifications for Democrats of Electoral College reform here and here. Daniel Geffen has an analysis of the potential effect of the Colorado changes here, and Jane Galt (and commenters) here.