Colorado oks joining national popular vote compact to cast all electoral votes for popular winner in

[Montrovant]

This may be a bad idea, but as I understand it the US Constitution grants the states the authority to choose their electors how they want to, and the electors can vote for whom they want.

9.1 Myths about the U.S. Constitution

• The U.S. Constitution gives the states the “exclusive” and “plenary” power to choose the method of awarding their electoral votes.
• The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from state winner-take-all statutes that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes within each separate state.
• The state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It was not discussed in the Federalist Papers.

Imagine that.
The POTUS candidate that wins the popular vote wins the White House.
Think of it as democracy building without bombs.

The clear intent of the Constitution is that the President should not be elected by the people but by the states. Conspiring to undermine the Constitution without amending it weakens the Constitution.

The clear intent of the Constitution is that the President should not be elected by the people but by the states. Conspiring to undermine the Constitution without amending it weakens the Constitution.

Do you believe the Constitution specifically requires winner-take-all elections?

9.1 Myths about the U.S. Constitution

• "The state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It was not discussed in the Federalist Papers.
• The winner-take-all rule was used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (all of which abandoned it by 1800). The Founders were dead for decades before the winner-take-all rule became the predominant method of awarding electoral votes.
• Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district—a reminder that the method of awarding electoral votes is a state decision."

The Constitution clearly intends for the states, not the people, to elect the president, and this bizarre compact says, that even if the voters in Colorado overwhelmingly vote for the candidate with fewer total votes the state will award its votes to the candidate the people of Colorado did not want. This is certainly not democracy and it is not what the Constitution intended. It is simply a temper tantrum by Democrats.

The states involved are choosing how they will allocate their electoral votes. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning when you start by saying the Constitution intends the states and not the people to elect the president, then you seem to be claiming that the Constitution intended presidential elections to be based on democracy.

 

[georgephillip]

This may be a bad idea, but as I understand it the US Constitution grants the states the authority to choose their electors how they want to, and the electors can vote for whom they want.

9.1 Myths about the U.S. Constitution

• The U.S. Constitution gives the states the “exclusive” and “plenary” power to choose the method of awarding their electoral votes.
• The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from state winner-take-all statutes that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes within each separate state.
• The state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It was not discussed in the Federalist Papers.

Imagine that.
The POTUS candidate that wins the popular vote wins the White House.
Think of it as democracy building without bombs.

The clear intent of the Constitution is that the President should not be elected by the people but by the states. Conspiring to undermine the Constitution without amending it weakens the Constitution.

The clear intent of the Constitution is that the President should not be elected by the people but by the states. Conspiring to undermine the Constitution without amending it weakens the Constitution.

Do you believe the Constitution specifically requires winner-take-all elections?

9.1 Myths about the U.S. Constitution

• "The state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It was not discussed in the Federalist Papers.
• The winner-take-all rule was used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (all of which abandoned it by 1800). The Founders were dead for decades before the winner-take-all rule became the predominant method of awarding electoral votes.
• Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district—a reminder that the method of awarding electoral votes is a state decision."

The Constitution clearly intends for the states, not the people, to elect the president, and this bizarre compact says, that even if the voters in Colorado overwhelmingly vote for the candidate with fewer total votes the state will award its votes to the candidate the people of Colorado did not want. This is certainly not democracy and it is not what the Constitution intended. It is simply a temper tantrum by Democrats.

The Constitution clearly intends for the states, not the people, to elect the president, and this bizarre compact says, that even if the voters in Colorado overwhelmingly vote for the candidate with fewer total votes the state will award its votes to the candidate the people of Colorado did not want. This is certainly not democracy and it is not what the Constitution intended. It is simply a temper tantrum by Democrats.

Why do you think electing a POTUS who won the national popular vote represents a threat to voters who cast their ballots for a different candidate regardless of which state they reside in?

9.1 Myths about the U.S. Constitution

• Section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit, require, encourage, or discourage the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes. The wording 'as the Legislature … may direct' permits the states to exercise their power to choose the manner of appointing their presidential electors in any way they see fit—subject only to the implicit limitation on all grants of power in the Constitution, namely that the states not violate any specific restriction on state action contained elsewhere in the Constitution."

 

[Care4all]

Shortly after we became a Nation, and after Madison and Adams created the electoral college, the States changed the way Madison and Adams had the electoral college set up.

It was set up, with electors from each state, being sent to the electoral college proportionate to how the State citizen's voted for them. My State of Maine and one other State are the only 2 states who still run their presidential elections in that manner....

ALL other States changed Madison's and Adam's electoral college method to a WINNER TAKES ALL electors situation....

whomever won their state, even if by just 1 person's vote, got all of their state electors sent to the college with all voting for the person who won, instead of sending their electors proportionate to how their citizens, within their state, voted.

THIS IS WHEN it initially became f-d up.

electors are allotted by the State's congressional districts, 1 elector for every congressional representative's district, plus 2 extra electors representing their 2 senators.

my state sends electors by how the congressional district voted... as our Founders created it.

in Maine, we have 2 congressional districts so we have 2 electors allotted to us, plus the 2 extra electors representing our 2 us senators, (who at that time, represented the state gvt)

In Maine, in 2016, 1 congressional district voted for Trump, 1 congressional district voted for Clinton,

and Clinton won the overall popular vote in the state

my state sent one elector to vote for Trump's congressional district win, and sent 1 elector for Clinton's congressional district's win

and the 2 electors our state gets to represent our 2 senators were sent to the electoral college to vote as our overall popular vote came out... for Hillary....

so, Clinton got 3 electors and Trump got 1.

WE are not a ''WINNER TAKES ALL STATE'', we are set up as our founders had set the electoral college.

ALL of these other State shenanigans of Winner takes All,

and now how these 12 states including Colorado are setting it up

Are a problem, and not what our founders wanted...

 

[ColonelAngus]

Colorado will be straight up blue very soon.

Thousands of people are fleeing the State of California that they fucked up and they are taking their fucked up ideas and fucking up Colorado.

Brilliant,. Liberals are so fucking stupid, it would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic.

If you are fleeing your fucked up blue state, don’t turn your new state into the fucked up state you are fleeing, it seems pretty obvious.

 

[Hossfly]

Colorado OKs joining National Popular Vote compact to cast all electoral votes for popular winner in presidential elections
Under a bill passed Thursday by the Colorado House, Colorado has agreed to join 12 other states in a compact system that aims to cast all its electoral votes for the winner of the national popular presidential vote.


This is what you try to do when your retard who doesn't understand the system, is told ffalse information by democratic ****s who only have their best interest at hand not yours assholes theirs.

What are the 12 states?

bripat9643

Colorado will join California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington state.

 

[bripat9643]

Colorado OKs joining National Popular Vote compact to cast all electoral votes for popular winner in presidential elections
Under a bill passed Thursday by the Colorado House, Colorado has agreed to join 12 other states in a compact system that aims to cast all its electoral votes for the winner of the national popular presidential vote.


This is what you try to do when your retard who doesn't understand the system, is told ffalse information by democratic ****s who only have their best interest at hand not yours assholes theirs.

What are the 12 states?

bripat9643

Colorado will join California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington state.

None of those states have voted Republican since Reagan, and Washington DC doesn't even have any electoral votes.

 

[Hossfly]

Colorado OKs joining National Popular Vote compact to cast all electoral votes for popular winner in presidential elections
Under a bill passed Thursday by the Colorado House, Colorado has agreed to join 12 other states in a compact system that aims to cast all its electoral votes for the winner of the national popular presidential vote.


This is what you try to do when your retard who doesn't understand the system, is told ffalse information by democratic ****s who only have their best interest at hand not yours assholes theirs.

What are the 12 states?

bripat9643

Colorado will join California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington state.

None of those states have voted Republican since Reagan, and Washington DC doesn't even have any electoral votes.

DC has 3 electoral votes due to population. They would have more but they can't have more than the least state, Wyoming, which has 3. Until 1964 DC residents couldn't vote in national elections.

 

[Care4all]

Colorado will be straight up blue very soon.

Thousands of people are fleeing the State of California that they fucked up and they are taking their fucked up ideas and fucking up Colorado.

Brilliant,. Liberals are so fucking stupid, it would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic.

If you are fleeing your fucked up blue state, don’t turn your new state into the fucked up state you are fleeing, it seems pretty obvious.

ahemmm, YOU all are the ones who voted for the most creepy, dishonest man that ever walked this Earth.... and you call us liberals f-d up?

 

[ColonelAngus]

Let’s flee a shitty state and turn our new home into a shitty state that we will soon flee again!

Stupid fucking liberal logic.

 

[toomuchtime_]

This may be a bad idea, but as I understand it the US Constitution grants the states the authority to choose their electors how they want to, and the electors can vote for whom they want.

9.1 Myths about the U.S. Constitution

• The U.S. Constitution gives the states the “exclusive” and “plenary” power to choose the method of awarding their electoral votes.
• The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from state winner-take-all statutes that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes within each separate state.
• The state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It was not discussed in the Federalist Papers.

Imagine that.
The POTUS candidate that wins the popular vote wins the White House.
Think of it as democracy building without bombs.

The clear intent of the Constitution is that the President should not be elected by the people but by the states. Conspiring to undermine the Constitution without amending it weakens the Constitution.

The clear intent of the Constitution is that the President should not be elected by the people but by the states. Conspiring to undermine the Constitution without amending it weakens the Constitution.

Do you believe the Constitution specifically requires winner-take-all elections?

9.1 Myths about the U.S. Constitution

• "The state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It was not discussed in the Federalist Papers.
• The winner-take-all rule was used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (all of which abandoned it by 1800). The Founders were dead for decades before the winner-take-all rule became the predominant method of awarding electoral votes.
• Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district—a reminder that the method of awarding electoral votes is a state decision."

The Constitution clearly intends for the states, not the people, to elect the president, and this bizarre compact says, that even if the voters in Colorado overwhelmingly vote for the candidate with fewer total votes the state will award its votes to the candidate the people of Colorado did not want. This is certainly not democracy and it is not what the Constitution intended. It is simply a temper tantrum by Democrats.

The Constitution clearly intends for the states, not the people, to elect the president, and this bizarre compact says, that even if the voters in Colorado overwhelmingly vote for the candidate with fewer total votes the state will award its votes to the candidate the people of Colorado did not want. This is certainly not democracy and it is not what the Constitution intended. It is simply a temper tantrum by Democrats.

Why do you think electing a POTUS who won the national popular vote represents a threat to voters who cast their ballots for a different candidate regardless of which state they reside in?

9.1 Myths about the U.S. Constitution

• Section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit, require, encourage, or discourage the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes. The wording 'as the Legislature … may direct' permits the states to exercise their power to choose the manner of appointing their presidential electors in any way they see fit—subject only to the implicit limitation on all grants of power in the Constitution, namely that the states not violate any specific restriction on state action contained elsewhere in the Constitution."

As you point out, the Constitution clearly intends that the President be elected by the states and not by popular vote, and this conspiracy to undermine the clear intent of the Constitution is technically legal, but it effectively disenfranchises the voters in the state in the case where they chose the candidate with the lower national popular vote score. Again, this is just about Democrats kicking and screaming and bawling about losing elections when they nominate people who are clearly not competent to run a campaign let alone the country, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.

 

[Claudette]

They are disenfranchising their voters.

Not to smart and I sure hope those against it get the SC to look at this piece of insanity.

 

[22lcidw]

Your "5:1" candidate with "overwhelming" votes actually gets less votes than his opponent, and that's why you think they should win. Too dumb.

What's dumb is your failure to understand, or care, that protections were put into the Constitution to keep a few big highly populated states from overwhelming and dominating the interests of those in the many less populated states.

We have a representative republic, moron. Not a pure democracy. Colorado and the other undoubtedly leftist states
would like to usher in fascism here by deconstructing the safeguards within the Constitution.

Go live in Belgium or China if you don't like our form of government.

Lol you’re inviting me to leave because I hate how the government operates, but the states making this agreement is part of how our government operates. Don’t like it? Move to Belgium or China, snowflake. Tyrannies by a minority never end well.

The men who drafted that document put checks and balances into it. You are slowly removing them. You are the tyranny.

 

[BlackFlag]

Your "5:1" candidate with "overwhelming" votes actually gets less votes than his opponent, and that's why you think they should win. Too dumb.

What's dumb is your failure to understand, or care, that protections were put into the Constitution to keep a few big highly populated states from overwhelming and dominating the interests of those in the many less populated states.

We have a representative republic, moron. Not a pure democracy. Colorado and the other undoubtedly leftist states
would like to usher in fascism here by deconstructing the safeguards within the Constitution.

Go live in Belgium or China if you don't like our form of government.

Lol you’re inviting me to leave because I hate how the government operates, but the states making this agreement is part of how our government operates. Don’t like it? Move to Belgium or China, snowflake. Tyrannies by a minority never end well.

The men who drafted that document put checks and balances into it. You are slowly removing them. You are the tyranny.

The men who drafted that document left it up to states to determine how to allocate their electoral votes. Sorry you’re butthurt about it, trash.

 

[Montrovant]

Your "5:1" candidate with "overwhelming" votes actually gets less votes than his opponent, and that's why you think they should win. Too dumb.

What's dumb is your failure to understand, or care, that protections were put into the Constitution to keep a few big highly populated states from overwhelming and dominating the interests of those in the many less populated states.

We have a representative republic, moron. Not a pure democracy. Colorado and the other undoubtedly leftist states
would like to usher in fascism here by deconstructing the safeguards within the Constitution.

Go live in Belgium or China if you don't like our form of government.

Lol you’re inviting me to leave because I hate how the government operates, but the states making this agreement is part of how our government operates. Don’t like it? Move to Belgium or China, snowflake. Tyrannies by a minority never end well.

The men who drafted that document put checks and balances into it. You are slowly removing them. You are the tyranny.

The Constitution leaves the method of choosing electors up to the states.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The Constitution leaves the method of choosing electors up to the states.

This says nothing at all about the Electoral College itself. Electoral votes are what elect presidents. Not the popular vote.

 

[BlackFlag]

The Constitution leaves the method of choosing electors up to the states.

This says nothing at all about the Electoral College itself. Electoral votes are what elect presidents. Not the popular vote.

Unless states decide to allocate their votes differently. Then it would be both.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Unless states decide to allocate their votes differently. Then it would be both.

States are free to do that if the states want to deny the will of it's inhabitants. I'm not sure that's legal and the term "disenfranchising" the voter comes to mind with regards to Colorado or the other ten states in this pact to subvert the Constitution.

 

[BlackFlag]

Unless states decide to allocate their votes differently. Then it would be both.

States are free to do that if the states want to deny the will of it's inhabitants.

Well the founders were fine with the nation denying the will of its inhabitants. So they’d probably be fine with states exercising their legal right to allocate votes however they want.

 

[Montrovant]

The Constitution leaves the method of choosing electors up to the states.

This says nothing at all about the Electoral College itself. Electoral votes are what elect presidents. Not the popular vote.

States have various laws regarding who electors must vote for. Of course, from the little reading I've done on the subject, it's still somewhat of an open question as to whether such laws are enforceable. The USSC apparently has ruled that requiring pledges from electors is acceptable, but I don't think it's been tested whether enforcing such a pledge is Constitutional. A number of laws do, in effect, require electors to vote for the person who wins the popular vote in their state.

Put another way, states are free to choose electors who are willing to follow the national popular vote when they cast their electoral votes.

 

[georgephillip]

9.1 Myths about the U.S. Constitution

• The U.S. Constitution gives the states the “exclusive” and “plenary” power to choose the method of awarding their electoral votes.
• The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from state winner-take-all statutes that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes within each separate state.
• The state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It was not discussed in the Federalist Papers.

Imagine that.
The POTUS candidate that wins the popular vote wins the White House.
Think of it as democracy building without bombs.

The clear intent of the Constitution is that the President should not be elected by the people but by the states. Conspiring to undermine the Constitution without amending it weakens the Constitution.

The clear intent of the Constitution is that the President should not be elected by the people but by the states. Conspiring to undermine the Constitution without amending it weakens the Constitution.

Do you believe the Constitution specifically requires winner-take-all elections?

9.1 Myths about the U.S. Constitution

• "The state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It was not discussed in the Federalist Papers.
• The winner-take-all rule was used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (all of which abandoned it by 1800). The Founders were dead for decades before the winner-take-all rule became the predominant method of awarding electoral votes.
• Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district—a reminder that the method of awarding electoral votes is a state decision."

The Constitution clearly intends for the states, not the people, to elect the president, and this bizarre compact says, that even if the voters in Colorado overwhelmingly vote for the candidate with fewer total votes the state will award its votes to the candidate the people of Colorado did not want. This is certainly not democracy and it is not what the Constitution intended. It is simply a temper tantrum by Democrats.

The Constitution clearly intends for the states, not the people, to elect the president, and this bizarre compact says, that even if the voters in Colorado overwhelmingly vote for the candidate with fewer total votes the state will award its votes to the candidate the people of Colorado did not want. This is certainly not democracy and it is not what the Constitution intended. It is simply a temper tantrum by Democrats.

Why do you think electing a POTUS who won the national popular vote represents a threat to voters who cast their ballots for a different candidate regardless of which state they reside in?

9.1 Myths about the U.S. Constitution

• Section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit, require, encourage, or discourage the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes. The wording 'as the Legislature … may direct' permits the states to exercise their power to choose the manner of appointing their presidential electors in any way they see fit—subject only to the implicit limitation on all grants of power in the Constitution, namely that the states not violate any specific restriction on state action contained elsewhere in the Constitution."

As you point out, the Constitution clearly intends that the President be elected by the states and not by popular vote, and this conspiracy to undermine the clear intent of the Constitution is technically legal, but it effectively disenfranchises the voters in the state in the case where they chose the candidate with the lower national popular vote score. Again, this is just about Democrats kicking and screaming and bawling about losing elections when they nominate people who are clearly not competent to run a campaign let alone the country, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.

As you point out, the Constitution clearly intends that the President be elected by the states and not by popular vote, and this conspiracy to undermine the clear intent of the Constitution is technically legal, but it effectively disenfranchises the voters in the state in the case where they chose the candidate with the lower national popular vote score. Again, this is just about Democrats kicking and screaming and bawling about losing elections when they nominate people who are clearly not competent to run a campaign let alone the country, Al Gore and Hillary

Are you implying Trump is competent to run this country?


"JANET YELLEN: TRUMP IS AN EVEN BIGGER IDIOT THAN HE LOOKS..."

Janet Yellen: Trump Is an Even Bigger Idiot Than He Looks

"In an interview with Marketplace’s Kai Ryssdal, Yellen was asked, point blank: 'Do you think the president has a grasp of macroeconomic policy?”

"And instead of dancing around the issue or offering some kind of 'I don’t know what’s in his heart answer, she responded, 'No, I do not.' That most of us had a hunch this was the case does not change the fact that it’s shocking Yellen would just come out and say it!

"And, apparently, macroeconomics is just one of several things she thinks President Buy and Sell knows nothing about, the others being international trade, business, and the entire purpose of the Federal Reserve."