Colorado to go "Popular Vote" for President

[Ben]

Colorado will now give all its electoral votes to whoever has the most popular votes, regardless of who Colorado voters vote for. Commies.

https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2019/02/26/welp-this-is-shady-af-colorados-dem-governor-will-sign-measure-that-makes-voting-for-president-in-co-pointless/

[DittoHead]

Colorado will now give all its electoral votes to whoever has the most popular votes, regardless of who Colorado voters vote for. Commies.

https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2019/02/26/welp-this-is-shady-af-colorados-dem-governor-will-sign-measure-that-makes-voting-for-president-in-co-pointless/

Well not NOW, but maybe someday in the future if enough other states join the compact.

The compact will not go into effect until the coalition includes states that add up to 270 electoral votes or more. Once it does go into effect, states that are part of the coalition would award their electoral votes en masse to the candidate who wins the national popular vote.

[Hawkmoon]

Colorado will now give all its electoral votes to whoever has the most popular votes, regardless of who Colorado voters vote for. Commies.

Don't many states do this now?

[Ben]

Don't many states do this now?

I know a few states split their electoral vote by congressional district. I actually don't have much of a problem with that, especially for coastal states, that often have very split populations. That seems to give more people a voice. CA would likely lose a half dozen or dozen electoral votes to Rs if they did something like that. All electoral votes going to the popular candidate, even if the particular state voted for the other guy, can too easily take that voice away.

[griz]

I had to re-read that.  If my legislators decided to ignore the majority of voters in my state in favor of voters in other states, I would be working hard to get them out of office as quickly as possible.  Actually it seems an impeachable offense to me, but then what do I know, I'm just a voter.

[griz]

Don't many states do this now?

For clarification, some states now give all their votes to the winner of the popular vote in that state.  But none defer to the national popular vote.

[Ben]

For clarification, some states now give all their votes to the winner of the popular vote in that state.  But none defer to the national popular vote.

Yes, this is my great problem with the idea. The popular vote is meant for intra-state elections. However states, not people, elect the President. It's the whole point of a confederation of states, IMO. It's mind-boggling to me that a state would consider ignoring its populace based on where the national "popular vote" was going.

[WLJ]

No taxation without representation

[DittoHead]

It's mind-boggling to me that a state would consider ignoring its populace based on where the national "popular vote" was going.

Many states still allow faithless electors for some reason too, not sure what the reasoning there is.

[Nick1911]

It's a strategy to get presidential electrons determined by straight majority vote, avoiding the abstraction layer that is the electoral collage without actually going about editing the constitution.

It only goes into effect if enough other states join in to guarantee that the national popular vote will result in an overall win by electoral votes.

[MechAg94]

It's a strategy to get presidential electrons determined by straight majority vote, avoiding the abstraction layer that is the electoral collage without actually going about editing the constitution.

It only goes into effect if enough other states join in to guarantee that the national popular vote will result in an overall win by electoral votes.

And liberals will abandon that plan in a heartbeat if their candidate is not the one who wins the popular vote. 

[MechAg94]

My question would be is this constitutional?  Can the state govt choose to ignore the vote of the state's citizens? 

[Hawkmoon]

I had to re-read that.  If my legislators decided to ignore the majority of voters in my state in favor of voters in other states, I would be working hard to get them out of office as quickly as possible.  Actually it seems an impeachable offense to me, but then what do I know, I'm just a voter.

I misunderstood it, too. I didn't catch that the electoral votes from one state might end up being cast for a candidate who did NOT carry that state. That's beyond dumb ... that's just plain crazy. I think it's bad enough that a candidate can carry a state by a 55/45 percent margin and yet that candidate gets 100 percent of that state's electoral votes.

[Nick1911]

My question would be is this constitutional?  Can the state govt choose to ignore the vote of the state's citizens? 

Depends on the state.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

[HankB]

Sounds like Colorado democrats are working to establish wholesale disenfranchisement of Colorado voters.

[griz]

I too wondered if it was constitutional.  On the one hand they are circumventing the process spelled out in the constitution, but on the other hand the framers of the document clearly thought that the powers that be should have the power to over ride the popular vote for president.  Either way, I want faithful votes.  But I would laugh for days if the 2020 popular vote went for Trump when Bernie/Hill/OCD/whomever won Colorado.

[Perd Hapley]

There's probably something I'm missing here, but I don't think the Constitution binds the states to any particular method of choosing electors, or deciding for whom the electors will vote. We're accustomed to each state having a popular vote, and the electors following the results of that vote, but so far as I know the states are free to change almost anything about the process.

[MechAg94]

That is what I was curious about.  It seemed to me that basing it in some form on the vote in Colorado would be okay.  Basing it on the vote in other states would seem to go against our way of govt.  Even letting the Colorado legislature pick the electors would be better.

Note:  Doesn't this point out the short term (ends justify the means) thinking of liberal democrats?  They assume they will always win the popular vote because they did so last time.  No thought is given to "well maybe that won't always be the case."

[230RN]

  


                        



                        



                        



                     RIP, Republic

[Ron]

Focusing on this issue at election time and pointing out how it is theoretically designed to disenfranchise “conservatives” should drive up “conservative” turnout.