An encouraging, democratic trend.....which will no doubt be opposed by Repubs

Colorado signs on to popular-vote effort ahead of 2020 presidential election

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...presidential-election/?utm_term=.ed0eea712ecd

Colorado has joined a list of states that plan to allocate their electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the nationwide popular vote.

Gov. Jared Polis (D) signed the measure into law Friday, uniting Colorado with 11 other states and the District of Columbia in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, whose members pledge to use their electoral votes on whichever candidate wins the national popular vote.

The bill will only take effect, however, if the law is passed by states representing at least 270 electoral college votes, which is the amount needed to win the presidency. With the addition of Colorado, that number now sits at 181.
.........................................................................................................
There's still work to be done, but hopefully we'll get to a point where the election reflects the will of the majority of voters nationwide. After all, we rise or fall as a nation united not as a set of states with disparate goals. If that means red states have to be dragged in to the world of realities like climate change kicking and screaming.......so be it. That singular issue is too important for our survival to let them threaten the lives of generations to come.

 

So you believe in Democracy?

Fantastic. So if the people vote to ban homosexual marriage and islam, you'd be fine with that? I mean it's the will of the people. Right?

 

The Supreme Court would overrule those unconstitutional votes. What I'm talking about is making the presidential election based on who gets the most votes. Why is that a problem?

 

As far as I know, state governments cannot dictate how the members of the electoral college can vote.

 

From the article...........

"Under the Constitution, states have the power to determine how they award their electoral votes in national elections."

 

I'm pretty sure they do. I thought that's why most, but not all, states are winner-take-all.

 

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.

 

Based on that States votes, not on the votes of other States.

 

That's what I'm saying. Each state gets to decide for itself.

 

The National Popular Vote bases it's States votes on what other States decide not on what that States people decide. Therein lies the problem.

 

I don't see anything in the Constitution saying they can't do it that way. Personally I prefer a split-vote based on the popular vote of the state rather than any kind of all-or-nothing.

 

There is nothing in the Constitution that says states cannot enforce term limits (Thornton v) yet it was shot down by SCOTUS. Another issue will be history. At no time in past history has this been tried but the Constitution has been followed. Article II will probably be decided on a narrow reading and include historic use of the EC. Deciding a States vote for President based on other States votes is counter to the Constitution's powers giving States the right to decide it's own electors based on that States citizens.

 

The only reason Democrats support this is because they assume the numbers will always be in their favor. They figure "hey, so long as we're the majority, why not impose our will?".

 

They are all blue states. Can you imagine if a republican won the popular vote? No matter, they can back out at the last minute if they want.

 

They'd be wise to drop this bid for mob rule, they don't have a crystal ball and cannot predict the unforseen.

 

Dumbest idea ever.

 

That's not what the constitution says. In says the state can determine how electors are appointed. Now I suppose they can say they will only appoint electors who vote the way they say, and that might be ruled constitutional; but states appointing electors based on how they will vote has been dismissed by courts before now.

 

I think many states have a winner take all policy, though I'm not sure if it is enforceable... it might be. But even so it is a winner take all based on the election within the state. I don't think the states can constitutionally dictate to an elector that winner takes all based on some other state's voting. There is one other little stumbling block: people in fact do not vote for a presidential candidate. Even though the candidates name is on the ballot they are actually voting for Charlie, an appointed elector who has said he will vote for the candidate.

 

Correct.

 

I am for all the BLUE states splitting their electoral votes while the RED states award all of their votes. By all means BLUE states, please do split your electoral votes at once.

 

I think basing it on the nationwide popular vote is a dumb move. It should be based on the state's popular vote.

 

Perhaps you misunderstood. The blue states are coalescing to try make sure we don't suffer the consequences of a cretin like Trump getting elected despite losing to Hillary by 3M votes.

"Other jurisdictions that have enacted the legislation include Rhode Island, Vermont, Hawaii, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, California and the District of Columbia. New Mexico, whose senate approved the legislation earlier this week, could be the next state to join."

 

Good luck with getting to 270. Not a chance in hell libs will get battleground, let alone red states to sign away their presidential votes to NYC, LA and Chicago.

The bill is DOA and everyone with half a brain (which excludes the TDS crowd) knows this.

 

It is an ignorant idea you are literally stealing the power of the peoples vote if a majority of other states vote against your states citizens. It means they cannot even voice their disapproval if a majority of other states vote opposite. I really do not understand how this is of value and why a state would willingly throw away a portion of their sovereignty for nothing of value.

 

Florida felon voting rights imperiled amid GOP opposition

https://www.politico.com/states/flo...-florida-as-gop-moves-to-define-rights-921875

"In November, more than 64 percent of the state’s voters approved Amendment 4, which guaranteed restoration for nearly all felons upon “completion of all terms of sentence including parole or probation.” People convicted of murder or felony sexual offenses are ineligible."