New Colorado law will give state's electoral college votes to national popular


#1

Do the democrats realize they are giving Trump the win in 2020? When you add the third party candidate , Howard Shultz into the mix . the safe blue states will swing to Trump. I find this so hilarious that they could screw themselves this bad and not know it.


#2

Colorado was purple up until the last few elections. I am not sure there is enough liberations to swing it republican. Mostly because Denver has been growing so much.


#3

the votes in Colorado no longer matter they are moot… there are eleven states that have decided to give their electoral college votes to the national popular vote winner. When Shultz carves off 5 million votes , Trump will get electoral college votes he never had a prayer of winning


#4

This law won’t effect the 2020 election. It won’t go into effect until there are enough states on board to equal 270 electoral votes. Even with Colorado and New Mexico it is still 80 votes short.


#5

In the 2016 election, 6.5 million votes were cast for people not named Clinton or Trump. Even after all that Clinton still finished 1.3 million votes ahead of Trump, and that is even after the years of hearings she went through. And that was even with her being disliked as a candidate even by those in the Democrat party, particularly the Bernie bots.

Now put forth a likeable candidate and someone the democrats actually would actually vote for and that person will have no problems winning the national popular vote.

Indeed its gonna be the GOP who will not like this if it comes into fruition.


#6

Until the outcome of 2016 and the loss of the rust belt states, the democrats were often seen as the party the electoral map best favors. The 2000 election came down to one state. But look at the blowout elections of McCain and Romney by Obama. Until the rust-belts states came into play in 2016 the path to 270 by any republican was next to impossible without running a royal flush.

If the rust belt states go back to democrats in 2020 this will all become a non issue again. It would seem an easier strategy would be to run a candidate who will appeal to Wisconsin - Michigan - Pennsylvania. These were all part of the blue wall. Very few people thought Trump would pick up even one of those states much less all three.


#7

There is also the fact the law makes no sense if it were to apply in general. It’s like a small eastern state such as Rhode Island which might have all its votes counted by 9pm would not be able to say which candidate its electoral votes will go to until the the far western states such as California, Hawaii or Alaska have all their votes counted, which could be into the early morning hours eastern time.

But what’s even worse than that is a states own votes can be set against who they actually voted for. That goes even more against what representative voting is supposed to be for than what the electoral college does.

For instance suppose one candidate wins the vote for a state with 85% of the vote. Despite that, all that states votes would be made to go to another candidate who might have won the popular vote with only, say, 35% of the popular vote.

The problem with this proposal is trying to maintain the electoral college system of awarding all of a states electoral votes to one candidate. The only way to make the winner being decided by popular vote work, is by awarding the states electoral votes proportionally to what the states vote was.

PhillyGuy


#8

Schultz will get less than 250,000 votes in the 2020 election.

It’s guaranteed.

3rd parties never do as well as hyped.

Allan


#9

Electoral college votes aren’t cast until december.

Allan


#10

Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3,000,000 not 1,300,000 in 2016.

Allan


#11

Biggestall99, it’s electoral votes are decided when the votes on Election Day are counted. The tally of the electoral votes in December is a formality.

Anyway, I just saw in another thread that Beto O’Rourke favors proportional electoral votes. That at least makes sense. It would require a Constitutional amendment however.

PhillyGuy


#12

Jill Stein got 1.5 million votes and Gary Johnson 4.5 million votes in 2016:

In a close election that can be significant. For instance, the total of both of 6 million votes, is double the amount of the popular vote Clinton won by.

PhillyGuy


#13

It would be hilarious if Trump won the popular vote and Colorado overwhelmingly voted for his opposition.


#14

Thats the way it is. and it only kicks in when the 270 ECV threshold is surpassed.

I have no problem with selecting electors that way.

Why do you?

Allan


#15

And?

6 million other voters and Clinton still lead by 3 million votes.


#16

But schultz will be an independent not affiliated with any party.

I will stick by my 250,000. a non-factor.

Allan


#17

it is only a formality if one candidate has the majority.

Otherwise it is important.

Allan


#18

Not so. The States decide the way that their electors are apportioned, which is why the agreement of states to throw all of their delegates to the national popular vote winner does not require a constitutional amendment, and would be a valid exercise.


#19

So you feel that a State’s population votes should be over turned by the votes from other State’s. Amazing


#20

I am from Jersey and have no problem with it.

Jersey has already signed onto this.

Allan