I live in Colorado. This amendment is questionable on constitutional grounds. Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution says that:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Amendment 36 violates this statement because it is changing the way the electors are chosen without going through the legislature.

Another strike against it is that it mandates that the results will effect this election. That's a borderline ex post facto law prohibited by the Constitution and also changes the laws affecting an election after the fact. That's simply wrong, as we saw when the Florida Supreme Court tried to do it in 2000.

Another strike against it is that it's being sponsored by a very wealthy person from California. Now tell me, if this is such an important issue to him, why isn't he trying to change the law in California instead of Colorado? The answer is simple: Democrats almost always carry California and they want all of that state's EC votes. It's like the old Soviet Doctrine: "What's mine is mine forever. What's yours is negotiable."

Colorado has 9 EC votes. If they are split while all but 2 other states retain the "winner take all" approach, then our state becomes irrelevant to presidential candidates. While that would reduce the number of annoying political ads we see every 4 years, it wouldn't be good for us because the candidates just wouldn't care about Colorado.