ICYMI: Colorado’s Governor Signs Bill That Alters Its Electoral College Participation

[MisterVeritis]

Think of it. Liberals meekly go along with their disenfranchisement. It is for a good cause.

[Chris]

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]

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 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 how they allocate their electors. Democratic Gov. Jared Polis said he would sign the bill, and now he has (via The Hill):



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/mattve...ation-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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Can any State remove its citizens' right to vote? Isn't that what this does? It renders their votes meaningless.

[Captdon]

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.