User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 41

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

  1. #1
    Original Ranter
    Points: 388,252, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    70166
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    89,892
    Points
    388,252
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    54,131
    Thanked 39,163x in 27,727 Posts
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    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 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?
    History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MMC For This Useful Post:

    HawkTheSlayer (03-18-2019),stjames1_53 (03-18-2019)

  3. #2
    Points: 43,595, Level: 51
    Level completed: 3%, Points required for next Level: 1,655
    Overall activity: 7.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    Hoosier8's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    10174
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    13,645
    Points
    43,595
    Level
    51
    Thanks Given
    1,411
    Thanked 10,165x in 6,408 Posts
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    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?
    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.
    When Donald Trump said to protest “peacefully”, he meant violence.

    When he told protesters to “go home”, he meant stay for an insurrection.

    And when he told Brad Raffensperger to implement “whatever the correct legal remedy is”, he meant fraud.

    War is peace.

    Freedom is slavery.

    Ignorance is strength.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Hoosier8 For This Useful Post:

    MMC (03-18-2019)

  5. #3
    Points: 17,291, Level: 31
    Level completed: 85%, Points required for next Level: 159
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    VeteranTagger Second Class10000 Experience Points
    Sergeant Gleed's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    2046
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Right Now? The Planet Gand
    Posts
    4,872
    Points
    17,291
    Level
    31
    Thanks Given
    492
    Thanked 2,038x in 1,586 Posts
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's totally unconstitutional.

    The state cannot assign it's electoral votes according the deranged whims of idiot Rodents in California and New York.
    Freedom Requires Obstinance.

    We the People DID NOT vote in a majority Rodent Congress, they stole it via election fraud.

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Sergeant Gleed For This Useful Post:

    HawkTheSlayer (03-18-2019),Hoosier8 (03-18-2019),MMC (03-18-2019)

  7. #4
    Points: 432,155, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteranOverdriveSocial
    Awards:
    Frequent Poster
    Tahuyaman's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    307977
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    183,457
    Points
    432,155
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    20,178
    Thanked 76,992x in 55,613 Posts
    Mentioned
    700 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I don't believe that the electoral college should be weakened by a state legislature which can't accept an election result.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Tahuyaman For This Useful Post:

    MMC (03-18-2019)

  9. #5
    Original Ranter
    Points: 388,252, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    70166
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    89,892
    Points
    388,252
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    54,131
    Thanked 39,163x in 27,727 Posts
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoosier8 View Post
    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?
    History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~

  10. #6
    Points: 665,303, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 84.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,554
    Points
    665,303
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    According to https://www.archives.gov/federal-reg...tml#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.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    MMC (03-18-2019)

  12. #7
    Points: 43,595, Level: 51
    Level completed: 3%, Points required for next Level: 1,655
    Overall activity: 7.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    Hoosier8's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    10174
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    13,645
    Points
    43,595
    Level
    51
    Thanks Given
    1,411
    Thanked 10,165x in 6,408 Posts
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    According to https://www.archives.gov/federal-reg...tml#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.
    When Donald Trump said to protest “peacefully”, he meant violence.

    When he told protesters to “go home”, he meant stay for an insurrection.

    And when he told Brad Raffensperger to implement “whatever the correct legal remedy is”, he meant fraud.

    War is peace.

    Freedom is slavery.

    Ignorance is strength.

  13. #8
    Points: 665,303, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 84.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,554
    Points
    665,303
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoosier8 View Post
    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.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  14. #9

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 74,318, Level: 66
    Level completed: 51%, Points required for next Level: 1,132
    Overall activity: 13.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cletus's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    195698
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    32,313
    Points
    74,318
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    3,682
    Thanked 27,383x in 15,850 Posts
    Mentioned
    412 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    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.
    “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” - Barry Goldwater

  15. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Cletus For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (03-18-2019),Chris (03-18-2019),FindersKeepers (03-19-2019),MisterVeritis (03-18-2019),MMC (03-18-2019)

  16. #10
    Points: 665,303, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 84.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,554
    Points
    665,303
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Chris; 03-18-2019 at 05:53 PM.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts