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


#41

I agree, and probably from here on out, barring major population changes.


#42

What about the will of their voters? Democrats are starting to be not so democratic…


#43

Ross Perot and Theodore Roosevelt (in 1912) were the only third party candidates who ever made a huge difference in the way their elections turned out in the 20th century.

Without Perot it’s possible Poppa Bush would have gotten a second term. I say possible because I still think Clinton would have won. It just would have insanely close.

Without Roosevelt and the Bull Mooses there is almost no doubt that Taft would have won in 1912.


#44

No it wouldn’t. It would Not require a Constitutional amendment for that.
For Example, Maine and Nebraska use the Congressional district method.


#45

Thats what i figured. No answer.


#46

Typical lib ■■■■■■■ response.

What are they going to argue to the court?

“Article 1, Section 10.”

It will happen. You are welcome to disagree, but I had already answered your question before you asked it.

Now ask it again and watch me roll my eyes again.


#47

Starting with a personal attack and a filter bypass wont help you. But it might just earn you some time off.

Article 1, Section 10 contains no language to stops states from requiring their electors to vote in a certain way. In point of fact save for the handful of states that already have their own laws which do require electors to vote for the popular vote of that state, electors can vote for whomever they want.

Thus someone marching into a court room screaming about Article 1 would be laughed out of court.

There is nothing that could stop this from happening if this coalition of states doing this choose to, save for a constitutional amendment and we all know that isnt happening.


#48

I can’t help it if the filter is busted.

And yes, it’s an ■■■■■■■ tactic commonly used by libs. “So you don’t have anything…” ( SPIT )

Always has been, and always will be. And I don’t play nicely with that.


A1 S10 forbids states to enter into a compact with other states without the agreement of Congress. It’s in there, plain as day.

States could easily decide to allocate their EVs on their own (as Maine and Nebraska have done, for example.) The states that currently comprise the 180 EVs already signed on the Compacct could individually do it today (if they had the courage.)


#49

Lose everything? when it comes to the EC votes, you only need 270. any more is an excess.

Allan


#50

OK. I missed the typo.

I fixed it.


#51

You need to work on your comprehension.


#52

The SCOTUS has ruled previous that there are only two types of compacts require congressional consent.

  1. Compacts that alter the balance of political power between the state and federal government; or
  2. Compacts that intrude on a power reserved to Congress.

See Virginia vs Tennessee.

This compact doesn’t alter the balance of power nor intrude on a congressional power. Thus no consent would be needed for this compact. Further more this compact is really just each state passing their own new laws each roughly similar in wording on how their electors must vote which is what states like Maine and Nebraska have done. So again if they want to do this they will and the court won’t stop them.

Funny thing is the Orange Clown in Chief as recently as April of last year said he wants a national popular vote election and did it on Fox and Friends of all places, and that was even after he was the beneficiary of the EC and winner take all states in the rust belt.

So while it won’t be in place for 2020 or 2024, it has been picking up steam and will likely be a reality within the next decade.


#53

I don’t really like the Electoral College, but I don’t think that the Electoral College will be as big as advantage to Trump in 2020 as it was in 2016. Michigan and Wisconsin will likely go blue again in 2020. And Arizona is really no longer a red state with Kyrsten Sinema having won that Senate seat during the last midterms.


#54

Doesn’t have to be literally Trump-like but someone Dems greatly disliked. Kerry won New York over Bush in 2004 by 60% to 40%. Then in this plan all of New York’s electoral votes would still be awarded to Bush because he won the popular vote as a whole.

PhillyGuy


#55

And?

Kerry was a terrible candidate. He lost the popular vote, wasn’t gonna win the EC vote. I fail to see the problem here. Bush won the election and as history shows did an absolute horrible job as president to the point not even people on here will say otherwise.

Its like you are arguing for a situation that just doesn’t happen and for some reason you think that is frightening to those that would like a system as presented. For someone reason you don’t understand that said system was proposed precisely for the case where the less popular candidate wins which as you can see by history seems to happen almost exclusively when a Republican wins.

Perhaps you should study this a little more and then maybe you’ll understand how this is nearly every case will not be a bad thing for democrats. Probably around that time you’ll stop the stupid gloating and switch over to the time tested Dems can’t win without … while defending the horrendous gerrymandering the GOP have done in the last decade +


#56

It’s one of the worst ideas in the history of The Republic no matter how you slice it.

The founders knew that the will of the majority had to be tempered to keep The Republic Free.


#57

Yes, the founders were all knowing gods. In reality, they knew as much about how the world would be in 2020, as you know how it will be in 2220.


#58

Irrelevant gibberish. The Constitution is what binds us together as a nation and keeps us from devolving into chaos.


#59

What’s wrong with that.

Allan


#60

And the Constitution can be amended. But in the case of this interstate compact, it won’t have to be.