Colorado's national popular vote bill advances

Colorado's national popular vote bill advances

The Colorado House moved to advance a bill that aims to pledge the state's nine Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote, rather than the state's popular vote. According to the Denver Post, the bill has already passed in the state Senate and will get a final state House vote on Thursday. It's expected that Governor Jared Polis, a Democrat, would sign the measure.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/colora...BDqsxdIF8&ftag=CNM-00-10aab6j&linkId=63891465

Wow....talk about disenfranchising the whole State. The Colorado House basically is saying California and NY can decide the election for them. I'm not sure if this will make it past the Supreme Court. I'm guessing it will be ruled unconstitutional.

 

How unconstitutional??

I don't much like the sound of this myself..

Over reaction to the Trump upset..

 

Make way for Democrats to completely ignore entire swaths of the country with the intent that they die off, kind of like Hillary did. The answer will be, just move to the big cities and everything will be fine. We'll take care of EVERYTHING after we make it impossible for you to take care of yourself. Trust us. We're great at doing it=)

 

Ahh.. my bad, I didnt read the url before responding... you left a lot of stuff out...

 

Well it's not really unconstitutional since states are allowed quite some leeway with their electors, the only requirement is that they use electors.

This is a round about way to institute a national vote and honestly this is the democrats choosing party over representing their state.

No state is going to give up their power of the vote to the larger states without some coercion there.

Why you wouldn't have your electors vote for what your state is voting for is absolutely ridiculous.

Talk about pissing off your own constituents.

 

In other words they will always be backing the winner!

 

This is shocking, why would a state want to give up more of its sovereignty and gain nothing in return? They are literally saying that their votes do not matter if other people vote against them in bigger numbers.

 

But not necessarily the winner of their state.

That is wrong.

What is interesting is that Colorado usually finishes voting somewhere in the middle of the pack so are they now going to wait until all the other states are finalized then simply put their electors behind whoever won?

That is essentially saying that Colorado is not going to vote for the president anymore.

 

It will take well over a decade before the matter ever reaches the united state supreme court for consideration.

 

False.

Both Bush and Trump lost the popular vote.

Colorado would have cast its electoral votes against both these candidates.

One would have to go back and check to see if that would have changed the electoral college outcome.

 

Their state voted for Bush but whoever they would have backed would have won. However, electing Gore would have been against what the people in their state wanted so what you are saying is that people in California should have more say than people in Colorado over how their electoral votes are cast.

And you are ok with that?

 

If the law is enacted, Colorado will immediately lose its status of a battleground state and become utterly irrelevant. There will be zero campaign events in Colorado, there will be zero advertisement dollars spent in the state, candidates will not compete for the vote of Colorado residents, not enough bang for the buck. The state and its voters will be completely ignored by campaigns.

 

Nope. If the Democrats control both Houses and the Governorship, if a Republican wins the national vote they can simply change the law back to where it was.

 

You find the silver lining in every dark cloud, don't you?

 

Call me crazy, but I think it boils down to Democrats hedging their bets on a demographic shift that votes in their favor.

All they have to do is keep pandering. They don't have to worry about nuanced debate, they just need to keep the 'lever pullers' happy. All they have to do is take up whatever position seems most virtuous, while constantly demonizing the opposition... the sheep then fall in line to pull the correct lever.

 

I'm hoping all of you noticed this paragraph in the OP before commenting (I didn't)... It's pretty much the crux of the issue

SNIP
If passed, Colorado would join 11 other states and the District of Columbia that have already enacted the National Popular Vote interstate compact into law. Collectively, the states that have signed on control 172 electoral votes. The measure would not take effect until enacted by enough states to secure another 98 electoral votes -- for a total of 270, the number needed to win the presidency.
ENDSNIP

Also, the days of calling Colorado a "battleground state" are over, at least for the near future... Removing Gardner in 2020 will put the nail in that coffin...

 

Well, I don't endorse the CO direction.

BUT, the system we have today is horrible.

Voters in populous states have significantly less influence on the presidential election than do tiny state voters. An elector in Wyoming represents far fewer voters than does an elector in Texas or California. Tiny states of America tend to be of one party and thus give a significant advantage to tiny states.

As our nation has grown significantly more urban, that discrepancy has gotten larger. Today, states with small populations SHOULD have less representation than they have.

Another issue is that the electoral college burys the influence of the minority in each state.

Beyond that, our system of selecting major party candidates is highly oriented to only a few states and always those same few states. If major party candidates can not win in those early primaries, other states don't even get a chance to vote for them. That's ignoring the voters in the majority of America! Why is my primary choice determined by New Hampshire and Ohio at every election?

 

Well that would be unconstitutional then since that is not how our constitution is set up for electing a president.

They would be in clear violation.

 

California has 55, Colorado has 9, I think that's fairly representative.

And remember, it's based off of population numbers so how you are thinking it's not balanced is very weird.

Basically you get a representative for every 500,000 people in your state.

One more representative = one more elector.

Why do you believe that some states should require more population to get an elector than others do?

That is pure favoritism and totally unfair.

 

We have noticed indeed. Just as we have noticed that all other states that have signed over their electors to NYC and LA are deep blue states so their decision absolutely does not matter.

And battleground states would be complete idiots to give up their status, prestige, influence and advertisement revenue associated with their disproportionately high importance in deciding presidential elections so there will never be enough battleground states stupid enough to sign up and provide those additional 100 electoral votes.

 

Not sure if this is constitutional either... can states decide what to do with their votes and how to pledge them?

Wow... just wow... my beautiful state...

 

Nothing mysterious about this. In the 2018 election, radical Democrats took over the Governor's office, and both houses of the Colorado General Assembly (our "Congress"). Now Democrats will rule over all of us, and that means undermining, sabotaging, and debilitating the Constitution of the United States every way they wish. As a Coloradoan, I'm madder than holy hell about this, and, there's absolutely NOTHING I can do about it.

Before long, our national elections will be completely controlled by large, liberal Democrat enclaves, like Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, etc., etc. This is NOT what the founders of this nation created! They wanted to avoid what had happened in England, where one city, London, lorded power over all the rest of the country. In France, one city, Paris, lorded its power over all of France. And now, it will simply be a webwork of large, Democrat-controlled cities in our country that will project all REAL power in national elections.

Oh, and BTW, here in Colorado -- ONE big, Democrat-controlled city, the Denver/Boulder metro area, rules over the entire state of Colorado. I know what I'm talking about....

 

How would this work if ALL states and Washington DC signed on?

 

Here's another thing that is unfair. Representation in Congress (and hence, electors) is determined by the population of that state, not the number of registered voters. States with large numbers of illegal immigrants endow their voters with additional clout.

 

Great... so we don't count anybody under 18 in our census???