View Full Version : ICYMI: Colorado’s Governor Signs Bill That Alters Its Electoral College Participation
It’s called the Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It’s simple. A state’s electoral college votes are allocated to whoever wins the national popular vote. Period. It’s constitutional and some prominent conservatives are pushing or it. I had the privilege of attending on of the seminars (https://townhall.com/columnists/mattvespa/2017/08/10/could-the-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-reduce-bad-policy-making-in-ou-n2366865)on the initiative a couple of years ago. I’m not for or against, but the reasoning behind this was that the Democrats have some 250 electoral college votes solidly locked up. With Florida teetering into becoming a blue state, Democrats would have a lock on 270. That’s the ballgame. Yet, there are many ways to skin the electoral cat, as some say. Ohio and Florida appear to be resilient to the blue wave sweeps, and I’m betting that both go for Trump again in 2020.
Still, we’ve only had five instances where the winner of a presidential race won the Electoral College but lost the national popular vote. The current system works for electing presidents. The country isn’t on fire. Let’s relax. States are given the authority as to how they allocate their electors. The election of 1796 ended the presidential election district model for winner-take-all because Thomas Jefferson was beaten by a mere three votes. Virginia ensured that all of their electors would go to TJ by 1800 with the winner take all system.
So, given that brief overview, Colorado said they were going to alter (http://beta.townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/02/13/electoral-shift-colorado-moving-to-alter-how-its-states-votes-are-allocated-in-n2541434)how they allocate their electors. Democratic Gov. Jared Polis said he would sign the bill (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/02/25/colorado-governor-will-sign-bill-altering-how-state-allocates-its-electoral-colle-n2542155), and now he has (via The Hill (https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/434353-colorado-governor-signs-national-popular-vote-bill-into-law?fbclid=IwAR2eZPESXavfn2QYjImQ-FdZw8i7d3vouh_vDdFGXoVoV8WNs77LLgxb_XQ)):
Prior to this move by Colorado, 11 states totaling 165 votes agreed to this compact. Now, it’s 12 states with 181 electoral votes. Nothing is triggered unless this push cobbles together enough states that will grant the winner 270 votes.....snip~
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/03/18/icymi-colorados-governor-signs-bill-that-alters-its-electoral-college-participation-n2543247
So what do you think? For or against?
Hoosier8
03-18-2019, 11:21 AM
It’s called the Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It’s simple. A state’s electoral college votes are allocated to whoever wins the national popular vote. Period. It’s constitutional and some prominent conservatives are pushing or it. I had the privilege of attending on of the seminars (https://townhall.com/columnists/mattvespa/2017/08/10/could-the-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-reduce-bad-policy-making-in-ou-n2366865)on the initiative a couple of years ago. I’m not for or against, but the reasoning behind this was that the Democrats have some 250 electoral college votes solidly locked up. With Florida teetering into becoming a blue state, Democrats would have a lock on 270. That’s the ballgame. Yet, there are many ways to skin the electoral cat, as some say. Ohio and Florida appear to be resilient to the blue wave sweeps, and I’m betting that both go for Trump again in 2020.
Still, we’ve only had five instances where the winner of a presidential race won the Electoral College but lost the national popular vote. The current system works for electing presidents. The country isn’t on fire. Let’s relax. States are given the authority as to how they allocate their electors. The election of 1796 ended the presidential election district model for winner-take-all because Thomas Jefferson was beaten by a mere three votes. Virginia ensured that all of their electors would go to TJ by 1800 with the winner take all system.
So, given that brief overview, Colorado said they were going to alter (http://beta.townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/02/13/electoral-shift-colorado-moving-to-alter-how-its-states-votes-are-allocated-in-n2541434)how they allocate their electors. Democratic Gov. Jared Polis said he would sign the bill (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/02/25/colorado-governor-will-sign-bill-altering-how-state-allocates-its-electoral-colle-n2542155), and now he has (via The Hill (https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/434353-colorado-governor-signs-national-popular-vote-bill-into-law?fbclid=IwAR2eZPESXavfn2QYjImQ-FdZw8i7d3vouh_vDdFGXoVoV8WNs77LLgxb_XQ)):
Prior to this move by Colorado, 11 states totaling 165 votes agreed to this compact. Now, it’s 12 states with 181 electoral votes. Nothing is triggered unless this push cobbles together enough states that will grant the winner 270 votes.....snip~
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/03/18/icymi-colorados-governor-signs-bill-that-alters-its-electoral-college-participation-n2543247
So what do you think? For or against?
It has not been decided constitutional and at this point in time, there will be no court cases based on it until it reaches the 270 electoral votes to initiate the process.
The constitutionality is suspect since it bases it's States votes on other states and tries to bypass the system put in place by the Constitution. A similar court case where states tried to initiate term limits since the constitution did not specifically deny them lost in court because it overrode what the people of the State might want. The issue will be Article II and the courts like to decide narrowly.
Sergeant Gleed
03-18-2019, 11:47 AM
It's totally unconstitutional.
The state cannot assign it's electoral votes according the deranged whims of idiot Rodents in California and New York.
Tahuyaman
03-18-2019, 12:30 PM
I don't believe that the electoral college should be weakened by a state legislature which can't accept an election result.
It has not been decided constitutional and at this point in time, there will be no court cases based on it until it reaches the 270 electoral votes to initiate the process.
The constitutionality is suspect since it bases it's States votes on other states and tries to bypass the system put in place by the Constitution. A similar court case where states tried to initiate term limits since the constitution did not specifically deny them lost in court because it overrode what the people of the State might want. The issue will be Article II and the courts like to decide narrowly.
I don't think they will get the 270.....do you?
Chris
03-18-2019, 01:38 PM
According to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html#provisions there's really no provision i the Constitution how electors must vote.
Some states dictate they must vote according to popular results in the state, and even fine faithless electors.
I could be wrong, didn't spend a lot of time researching.
Personally, think a state dictacting they must vote according to popular national results defeats the entire purpose of the Electoral College.
Hoosier8
03-18-2019, 01:56 PM
According to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html#provisions there's really no provision i the Constitution how electors must vote.
Some states dictate they must vote according to popular results in the state, and even fine faithless electors.
I could be wrong, didn't spend a lot of time researching.
Personally, think a state dictacting they must vote according to popular national results defeats the entire purpose of the Electoral College.
The votes of their STATE. I think it would lose in court because this movement predicates that the votes are based on other states votes.
Chris
03-18-2019, 02:36 PM
The votes of their STATE. I think it would lose in court because this movement predicates that the votes are based on other states votes.
I think the Constitution only specifies the number of electors per state (one for each Rep, one for each Senator) and when they can be elected and when they vote, no more.
Cletus
03-18-2019, 03:55 PM
I think the Constitution only specifies the number of electors per state (one for each Rep, one for each Senator) and when they can be elected and when they vote, no more.
The big constitutional question would be whether this is effectively entering into a compact with other states. If it is, it is unconstitutional without the consent of Congress, as per Article I, Section 10.
As a minimum, it should want the residents of Colorado to storm the legislature and hang a few legislators and the governor effectively stripping them of their vote and any say in the national election. Anyone who supports this should be tarred and feathered.
Chris
03-18-2019, 04:45 PM
The big constitutional question would be whether this is effectively entering into a compact with other states. If it is, it is unconstitutional without the consent of Congress, as per Article I, Section 10.
As a minimum, it should want the residents of Colorado to storm the legislature and hang a few legislators and the governor effectively stripping them of their vote and any say in the national election. Anyone who supports this should be tarred and feathered.
Good point!
And, yes, Coloradoans should storm the castle. They might be too liberal to begin with though.
MisterVeritis
03-18-2019, 05:23 PM
Think of it. Liberals meekly go along with their disenfranchisement. It is for a good cause.
Chris
03-18-2019, 05:55 PM
Think of it. Liberals meekly go along with their disenfranchisement. It is for a good cause.
We're all basically liberal. Conservatives and libertarians tend to hold to classical liberalism, but in terms of individualism and egalitarianism, that's not much different from the ideology of modern liberals.
Captdon
03-18-2019, 06:41 PM
It’s called the Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It’s simple. A state’s electoral college votes are allocated to whoever wins the national popular vote. Period. It’s constitutional and some prominent conservatives are pushing or it. I had the privilege of attending on of the seminars (https://townhall.com/columnists/mattvespa/2017/08/10/could-the-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-reduce-bad-policy-making-in-ou-n2366865)on the initiative a couple of years ago. I’m not for or against, but the reasoning behind this was that the Democrats have some 250 electoral college votes solidly locked up. With Florida teetering into becoming a blue state, Democrats would have a lock on 270. That’s the ballgame. Yet, there are many ways to skin the electoral cat, as some say. Ohio and Florida appear to be resilient to the blue wave sweeps, and I’m betting that both go for Trump again in 2020.
Still, we’ve only had five instances where the winner of a presidential race won the Electoral College but lost the national popular vote. The current system works for electing presidents. The country isn’t on fire. Let’s relax. States are given the authority as to how they allocate their electors. The election of 1796 ended the presidential election district model for winner-take-all because Thomas Jefferson was beaten by a mere three votes. Virginia ensured that all of their electors would go to TJ by 1800 with the winner take all system.
So, given that brief overview, Colorado said they were going to alter (http://beta.townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/02/13/electoral-shift-colorado-moving-to-alter-how-its-states-votes-are-allocated-in-n2541434)how they allocate their electors. Democratic Gov. Jared Polis said he would sign the bill (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/02/25/colorado-governor-will-sign-bill-altering-how-state-allocates-its-electoral-colle-n2542155), and now he has (via The Hill (https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/434353-colorado-governor-signs-national-popular-vote-bill-into-law?fbclid=IwAR2eZPESXavfn2QYjImQ-FdZw8i7d3vouh_vDdFGXoVoV8WNs77LLgxb_XQ)):
Prior to this move by Colorado, 11 states totaling 165 votes agreed to this compact. Now, it’s 12 states with 181 electoral votes. Nothing is triggered unless this push cobbles together enough states that will grant the winner 270 votes.....snip~
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/03/18/icymi-colorados-governor-signs-bill-that-alters-its-electoral-college-participation-n2543247
So what do you think? For or against?
Hildebeast only received 230 electoral votes. Trump picked the lock. This will last until the first state that does it. I can't imagine my state voting for someone and the other one get our votes. That would be a one and done.
Captdon
03-18-2019, 06:44 PM
It has not been decided constitutional and at this point in time, there will be no court cases based on it until it reaches the 270 electoral votes to initiate the process.
The constitutionality is suspect since it bases it's States votes on other states and tries to bypass the system put in place by the Constitution. A similar court case where states tried to initiate term limits since the constitution did not specifically deny them lost in court because it overrode what the people of the State might want. The issue will be Article II and the courts like to decide narrowly.
The Constitution says each state shall pick electors. It doesn't say how. I don't see a Constitutional issue.
The term limit was thrown out because it changed the qualifications to hold office.
Captdon
03-18-2019, 06:46 PM
The votes of their STATE. I think it would lose in court because this movement predicates that the votes are based on other states votes.
The states can select their electors as they choose. They can pick names out of a hat. Read the Article.
Captdon
03-18-2019, 06:47 PM
The big constitutional question would be whether this is effectively entering into a compact with other states. If it is, it is unconstitutional without the consent of Congress, as per Article I, Section 10.
As a minimum, it should want the residents of Colorado to storm the legislature and hang a few legislators and the governor effectively stripping them of their vote and any say in the national election. Anyone who supports this should be tarred and feathered.
Yea, I didn't think of the compact. Good catch.
Hoosier8
03-19-2019, 05:05 AM
I think the Constitution only specifies the number of electors per state (one for each Rep, one for each Senator) and when they can be elected and when they vote, no more.
The Constitution does not explicitly mention States cannot implement their own term limits either but SCOTUS shot that down.
Hoosier8
03-19-2019, 05:09 AM
The Constitution says each state shall pick electors. It doesn't say how. I don't see a Constitutional issue.
The term limit was thrown out because it changed the qualifications to hold office.
Each State will pick it's own electors but this process makes that a moot point because it bypasses what the States voters want based on other States votes. Very similar to the argument in Thornton that was about term limits.
MisterVeritis
03-19-2019, 09:40 AM
Can any State remove its citizens' right to vote? Isn't that what this does? It renders their votes meaningless.
Captdon
03-19-2019, 11:45 AM
The Constitution does not explicitly mention States cannot implement their own term limits either but SCOTUS shot that down.
No, the States can. California got rid of Willy Brown that way.
Captdon
03-19-2019, 11:46 AM
Can any State remove its citizens' right to vote? Isn't that what this does? It renders their votes meaningless.
There is no Constitutional requirement for how electors are selected. A vote of the people is not needed.
Captdon
03-19-2019, 11:50 AM
Each State will pick it's own electors but this process makes that a moot point because it bypasses what the States voters want based on other States votes. Very similar to the argument in Thornton that was about term limits.
Thornton wasn't about the Electoral College. It said the the States cannot make qualifying for office that is stricter then the Constitution. It only applied for federal officials.
MisterVeritis
03-19-2019, 12:09 PM
There is no Constitutional requirement for how electors are selected. A vote of the people is not needed.
The citizens in each affected State would have to look to the State's Constitution.
Hoosier8
03-19-2019, 01:56 PM
Thornton wasn't about the Electoral College. It said the the States cannot make qualifying for office that is stricter then the Constitution. It only applied for federal officials.
The goal of the EC is clear and this is also for a Federal position. This effort is a way to bypass the Constitution. It would not survive SCOTUS, that is unless the democrats win and pack the court with liberal activists like they are threatening.
Tahuyaman
03-20-2019, 03:39 PM
A president is elected through a popular vote, but not a national popular vote. It's a state by state popular vote.
Instead of altering the electoral college, why don't we educate our students as to why the founders of nation believed it was necessary? Educate them objectively and factually.
If we eliminated the electoral college most of the nation would be basically irrelevant. Four major metropolitan areas would select our president. It's a recipe for disaster.
Peter1469
03-20-2019, 06:39 PM
A president is elected through a popular vote, but not a national popular vote. It's a state by state popular vote.
Instead of altering the electoral college, why don't we educate our students as to why the founders of nation believed it was necessary? Educate them objectively and factually.
If we eliminated the electoral college most of the nation would be basically irrelevant. Four major metropolitan areas would select our president. It's a recipe for disaster.
Some of the articles against the EC acknowledge the history, but rail against it.
Tahuyaman
03-20-2019, 07:12 PM
Some of the articles against the EC acknowledge the history, but rail against it.
I think eliminating the EC would be a bad thing and basically silence half the population.
One wins the electoral vote of a state by winning the popular vote in that state.
Most of opposition to the EC is because too many people have not been educated properly on the it’s history and reasons it’s necessary in our form of government.
Peter1469
03-20-2019, 07:13 PM
I think eliminating the EC would be a bad thing and basically silence half the population.
One wins the electoral vote of a state by winning the popular vote in that state.
Most of opposition to the EC is because too many people have not been educated properly on the it’s history and reasons it’s necessary in our form of government.
It would be a grave mistake to repeal the EC.
Tahuyaman
03-20-2019, 07:22 PM
It would be a grave mistake to repeal the EC.
Nothing good would happen.
It would be a grave mistake to repeal the EC.
And I'm sure the people promoting it know that. The people who go along with it are indoctrinated idiots who can't understand that its a grave mistake.
I forgot to include those who promote it who are indoctrinated idiots who can't understand that its a grave mistake. Like Elizabeth Warren. That fruitcake advocates it because she wants to make the idiots think she is mainstream. I was thinking ICE should go to her and tell her that they have done an exhaustive investigation and came to the conclusion that she was right all along, she is an Indian. Then they should immediately deport her....to India. :smiley:
https://files.jcink.net/uploads/utb//poco.jpg
Looks more like this guy
https://files.jcink.net/uploads/utb//ghandi.jpg
Than this guy.
https://files.jcink.net/uploads/utb//cnbtn.jpg
Tahuyaman
03-20-2019, 11:33 PM
Well, this will officially end the discussion.....
https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/lefts-new-talking-point-the-electoral-college-is-racist
Left's new talking point: The Electoral College is racist
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who's a leading indicator of Democratic talking points, recently called the Electoral College "A shadow of slavery's power."
Peter1469
03-21-2019, 07:17 AM
Well, this will officially end the discussion.....
https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/lefts-new-talking-point-the-electoral-college-is-racist
Left's new talking point: The Electoral College is racist
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who's a leading indicator of Democratic talking points, recently called the Electoral College "A shadow of slavery's power."
They want to destroy the republic and replace it with a democracy. Although the 17th Amendment started that process. It should be repealed.
Delaware joined in.
Its funny.....Democrats lose and they want to change the Electoral College. They lose majority on SCOTUS and now they want to pack that court.
What Democrats show this country is.....when things don't go their way. They will do anything to win. Include go around the Constitution. Showing the country that leftist ideology comes from LOSERS.
Oh and their Clowns for the Presidency are now all for changing from the Electoral College. More than likely it is because they know they are going to lose again.
Tahuyaman
03-21-2019, 08:18 AM
Delaware joined in.
Its funny.....Democrats lose and they want to change the Electoral College. They lose majority on SCOTUS and now they want to pack that court.
What Democrats show this country is.....when things don't go their way. They will do anything to win. Include go around the Constitution. Showing the country that leftist ideology comes from LOSERS.
Oh and their Clowns for the Presidency are now all for changing from the Electoral College. More than likely it is because they know they are going to lose again.
They don't want to convince people to support their ideas. They want to force their ideas upon us. That's because they can't really present a compelling argument.
They don't want to convince people to support their ideas. They want to force their ideas upon us. That's because they can't really present a compelling argument.
That is what the left is all about. Anything to gain power and keep it.
Don29palms
03-21-2019, 09:37 AM
Democrats know what is best for the country. VOTE DEMOCRAT!
Captdon
03-21-2019, 10:30 AM
Well, this will officially end the discussion.....
https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/lefts-new-talking-point-the-electoral-college-is-racist
Left's new talking point: The Electoral College is racist
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who's a leading indicator of Democratic talking points, recently called the Electoral College "A shadow of slavery's power."
You have to love AOC. She's the gift that keeps giving.
Tahuyaman
03-21-2019, 11:57 AM
It looks like there are some out there who do not respect the popular vote of more than half the states. In fact a substantial majority of states. There could be an elitist mind-set behind some of this.
It looks like there are some out there who do not respect the popular vote of more than half the states. In fact a substantial majority of states. There could be an elitist mind-set behind some of this.
Don't forget by Counties. There are like 3013 counties in the US. Trump won over 2400 to Hillary's 456.
Just like Trump won 30 states to Hillary's 20.
Tahuyaman
03-21-2019, 12:14 PM
Don't forget by Counties. There are like 3013 counties in the US. Trump won over 2400 to Hillary's 456.
Just like Trump won 30 states to Hillary's 20.
That popular vote doesn't count. The only one that counts is the large metropolitan enclaves of liberal elites. Screw everyone else, they don't matter. They are rubes and inbreds anyway. They shouldn't have any representation. They are so stupid that they need to be told how to live. They just need to shut up and concentrate on growing corn and wheat.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.