Colorado Joins 11 States Agreeing to Shift to Popular Vote System

Yes, but Oklahoma elected Scott Pruitt. They don't seem to make the best decisions.

 

Your tinfoil MAGA hat is way too tight. Good Lord! SMH..

 

BWAHAHAHAHA! They Authoritarian Leftists who want to place all the power in the hands of a few choice states only need 27 more states!

The smaller states are never going to vote to take power away from themselves. This whole thought and dream is for morons.

The reason we have an electoral college is that is was required to from the Union. There would be no United States without it. If it was forced upon the less populace states, they would leave the union and the nation would be over.

 

Non citizens cannot vote. There is absolutely no indication of voter fraud. That is just something Trump made up because he lost the popular vote to Hillary by 3 million votes. His ego couldn't stand it so he manufactured 3 million illegal voters along with imaginary buses to get them here.

 

Gotta love it when someone uses a blog with an opinion piece, based on things out of context, as what they feel is a legitimate source.

That blog quoted excerpts from the July 19, 1787 Madison debates. Yes, Madison was initially in favor of the popular vote. There is no doubt about it. However, in the end he supported the EC as a better method to combat "cabal, corruption, intrigue, and faction". At one point...in the same debate..., it was even proposed that small States (less than a population of 200,000k) would get 1 EC....medium size States (>200,000k but <300,000k) get 2 EC....and larger States (<300,000k) get 3 EC votes. That is it....3 EC votes for the largest States.

He also did mentioned the higher slavery population in the South and was concerned about if the slaves were to be counted as a vote in the 'popular system'. However, the slaves would not really be voting for themselves, if counted, they were counted as a vote (3/5 per slave) for the candidate their master wanted. Also, that was also only IF the slave were counted in the Presidential Election as they were proposed to be in determining the number of Representatives each States would have. It really was not about the slave themselves or how they would vote.....it was the possibility that one man's vote (the master) would hold more weight than a person that did not own slaves......Basically, a man with 30 slaves would have 19 votes...18 for his slaves and 1 for himself. Black suffrage did not exist (except for free slaves), so the concept of them voting was irrelevant and the EC system was not created with the idea of blacks themselves in mind.

In the end Madison admitted that a EC system would work much better in the long run and would last better over time than a popular vote would. He also ended up supporting it because it would be "less objectionable".

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_719.asp

BTW...that whole debate derived because the smaller States were concerned that the larger States would dominate the Presidential election with their population. So it is not "antiquated bull-***" as you claim when the same situation exists today.

 

Where did you get this stuff from? Please post your source.

 

That's how it looks to me as well. The State Legislatures pick the Electors and they are welcome to do it how ever they like. If the People of Colorado don't like how they do it, they can replace them.

 

If you believe it is only the "Cult of Trump" an/or the Republican Party that are angry and confrontational all the time, then you have not been paying much attention. It might be your rose colored glasses.

 

There is a process for constitutional change. It isn't state politicians unilaterally deciding to surrender the will of the people of THEIR state in favor of how people in other states voted.

Take a moment to consider what these 11 states want to do. They are essentially saying it doesn't matter how the people of THEIR state voted. Those citizens have completely lost their political choice because their politicians "know better".

If you want to change how the presidential election is tabulated, you must amend the constitution. If you try an end run around it you have rendered the election unconstitutional and literally ILLEGAL. At that point, you have an illegal government for the first time in this nation's history.

You really believe that is not going to have consequences?

 

We never have. It's like you're not reading the thread.

And it's not like there's a single way we use the Electoral College, anyways. Some states split the Electoral votes, some don't.

 

The part you posted doesn't say what you think it does. That's what I'm explaining to you.

 

You don't think your question is angry and confrontational?

 

It's not an opinion at all. I'm explaining why Democrats have a tendency to lose the EC while winning the popular vote. What I'm explaining is a simple, fact, there's nothing to argue about.

You have some linguistic objection to my use of "wasted." Okay, I don't care. I don't know how to state the mechanics at play more clearly, I'm sorry to fail you on this matter.

 

Both of our votes in both of our states are part of a larger election.

Like it or not, the popular vote is counted, it's a thing that exists.

You have no idea what I want.

No, it doesn't. The States are still counting their own votes and choosing Electors accordingly.

Oh yeah, a national vote, there's no way the United States could pull something like that off. We're just a bunch of bumpkins over here.

 

Oh, just every single case in which the compact clause went to court.

United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission or Virginia v. Tennessee

You're complaining about a problem that already exists. It's a good question, and I don't know the answer, but it's not very relevant here.

It's the same now as it would be if every single state adopted this reform.

 

Indeed. And break up the medium-sized states, and they will get even closer. Then break up the small states, and they will get even closer.

Indeed it was. And not how you think. You weren't supposed to have any say in who was President.

But in the decades following ratification, the Democrat-Republicans were by far the most dominant political party, and one by one they passed laws in States to move over to a popular vote on a state-by-state basis.

 

It's incorrect because Trump has been worse for Russia than Obama ever was, and our Senate is the most hostile of any Senate to Russia in decades.

The idea that our Supreme Court Justices or Senate are Russian puppets because Trump is supposedly a Russian puppet are laughable.

And people are laughing at you. If this is the centerpiece of your campaign strategy, you're going to lose again.

 

Oh boy.

Countries dwarfed by their martial and economic might, strongly linked economically, and in geographic proximity.

We are none of the four.

It's not what is happening, at all. If you're worried about Russia, there are three countries that you want to carefully manage your relations with.

One is Poland. Now, Trump didn't begin the process of close alliance with Poland, GWB did and Obama continued it. Trump accelerated the process essentially immediately. Two is Turkey. A few months ago, when Trump suddenly announced the American withdrawal from Syria, it wasn't Russian words that swayed him, it was Turkish words. Truth is, the Russians want the Americans in Syria because we're the only thing keeping the Turks out. Three is the UK. Trump has been among most amenable to UK leadership in the past several years.

The Russians did "interfere" in our election. They didn't get the outcome they wanted. Indeed, the ideal scenario from the Russian point of view would have been for Hillary to win the EC but lose the popular vote, for the vote to be close, and for the legitimacy of the election to be question. They did accomplish part of this goal, the legitimacy of the election is in question, but they shot themselves in the foot. For decades the American left has been the most amenable to Russian concerns. It is the left that pushes for a reduction in US military spending and especially in missile and anti-missile capabilities in Eurasia.

You're a socialist, yes? Most of your comrades are a bit sharper on this matter than you are here.

 

Why are you conflating Constitutional change and how state legislatures decide to pick Electors?

Oh ****! Better get a time machine and go back to the early 19th Century, when every single state changed how the presidential elections were tabulated!

I guess every single election since like 1800 has been illegitimate.

You really need to actually read the Constitution.

 

That is not this. If this is done in agreement with some states then that is a compact. If it is not a compact then how is it enforceable?

 

You simply do not understand we do not and have never voted as a country in a national popular election. There is no campaign to win a national popular vote. Voting patterns do not reflect what would be the outcome of a national popular vote. Tallying up the results of the 51 unique and separate state votes for their respective slate of electors and declaring that as the same result had there been a national popular vote is folly.

 

The current system is not enforceable, so this is a strange objection.

 

I completely understand how the EC works. I also understand that the States count the votes, and that all human beings capable of simple mathematics can then add these votes up and call this the "popular vote," and that this is what everyone not currently engaged in obfuscation does.

The implication, obviously, is that you're engaging in obfuscation.

Stop. That's a bad idea.

 

They are only part of a vote in YOUR STATE, nothing more. The STATES choose the President.

You have been quite clear you want a national federal election, where have I strayed?

NO. NO NO NO. If we go to a national popular vote the the Voting Rights Act kicks in and EQUAL PROTECTION. We all vote under the same system and rules and regulations.

We have have a constitution and we have sovereign states and each state has it's constitutional issues with the federal government and have standing in the Constitution. YOU vote in YOUR state to decide who YOUR state will support to be the next President. The Constitution and the Electoral College balances the power between each state the populations of each state. It has served us well for over 200 years and it will continue to do so.

 

Well then why would any state agree to and engage in an unenforceable agreement which could jeopardize the will of the citizens of it's state?