Colorado Rigging Next Election

[Moscow Mitch McTraitor]

State sovereignty mostly went away, thanks to the Civil War. And that's a good thing.

Yeah, your dear leader found out differently in the many times the supremes bitch slapped him.

.

You mean like the recent Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare)?

Recent, no, the original one.

.

Yep, after Moscow Mitch and the Repugs stole a Supreme Court seat that rightfully belonged to Obama in an egregious, unprecedented move that never occurred before in this country's history. No coincidence there.

And, of course, you anti-democratic Repugs were outraged by that power grab.

OMG, you're not only boring and ignorant, you're redundant in the process, that's a sure sign of a low IQ. Mtich was just following the Biden rule. LMAO

.

The Biden rule that never existed except in some tiny corner of Repugs' minds? Got it, goober.

 

[OKTexas]

You might want to read Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3. While you're at it, you might want to read the rest of the document as well, you appear to be really ignorant about it.

.

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

So what am I missing?

enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State,

That.

.

What Agreement do you think they are entering into? Their decision is just for their state, and is not binding on any other state, just as no other state has any binding agreements on them.

Did you bother to read the OP?

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

.

The term "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact" is a term coined by Judicial Watch and doesn't appear anywhere in the Colorado law. You're making up terms, and then complaining about them. So childish of you.

So you want to play semantics, Judicial Watch coined the phrase, what a fucking liar.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

Tell us what the law says about its effective date? Come on commie, you want to play fucking word games, let's go.

.

 

[Moscow Mitch McTraitor]

So how, exactly, was 'The African American Vote' suppressed? What a load of rubbish.

Do some research on the Google machine, genius. I'm sure that you can easily find at least 2 dozen articles on the topic.

 

[OKTexas]

Yeah, your dear leader found out differently in the many times the supremes bitch slapped him.

.

You mean like the recent Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare)?

Recent, no, the original one.

.

Yep, after Moscow Mitch and the Repugs stole a Supreme Court seat that rightfully belonged to Obama in an egregious, unprecedented move that never occurred before in this country's history. No coincidence there.

And, of course, you anti-democratic Repugs were outraged by that power grab.

OMG, you're not only boring and ignorant, you're redundant in the process, that's a sure sign of a low IQ. Mtich was just following the Biden rule. LMAO

.

The Biden rule that never existed except in some tiny corner of Repugs' minds? Got it, goober.

In his own words.


.

 

[Moscow Mitch McTraitor]

You mean like the recent Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare)?

Recent, no, the original one.

.

Yep, after Moscow Mitch and the Repugs stole a Supreme Court seat that rightfully belonged to Obama in an egregious, unprecedented move that never occurred before in this country's history. No coincidence there.

And, of course, you anti-democratic Repugs were outraged by that power grab.

OMG, you're not only boring and ignorant, you're redundant in the process, that's a sure sign of a low IQ. Mtich was just following the Biden rule. LMAO

.

The Biden rule that never existed except in some tiny corner of Repugs' minds? Got it, goober.

In his own words.


.

Did the Senate ever take a vote on the so-called "Biden Rule"? Was it ever used from 1992 - 2015? Nope.

There wasn't even a Supreme Court vacancy at the time Biden gave this speech.

Your shit is weak and disingenuous. I expect nothing less from a Repug.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Democrats are a bunch of criminals.
They fully intend on stealing the next presidential election by passing laws that assure that regardless how their state votes, they will award their electoral votes to which ever candidate wins the popular vote.
This goes directly against the constitution and is an assault on the election process.

All Democrats have to do is generate enough fake votes in Blue States using illegal voters...and then Colorado would award their electoral votes to the fake winner.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Colorado Open Records Act lawsuit on behalf of reporter Todd Shepherd against Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold for records of communications related to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would award Colorado’s presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of whether Colorado’s voters chose that candidate (Todd Shepherd v Jena Griswold in her official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State (No. 2019-cv-032310)).

The suit was filed after Griswold refused to turn over certain documents in response to a February 4, 2019, open records request for records about the Electoral College debate.

On February 21, 2019, the Colorado House passed the National Popular Vote bill and sent it to Governor Jared Polis. Colorado Secretary of State Griswold is a critic of the Electoral College and applauded Gov. Polis’s signing of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Currently, most states award all their Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. But, as described here by the National Conference of State Legislatures, when a state, such as Colorado, “passes legislation to join the National Popular Vote Compact, it pledges that all of that state’s electoral votes will be given to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide, rather than the candidate who won the vote in just that state. These bills will take effect only when states with a majority of the electoral votes have passed similar legislation and joined the compact.”

Five times a presidential candidate has won the “popular vote” but lost the election, most recently Hillary Clinton. Many opponents of President Trump have proposed undoing the Electoral College. Supporters of the Electoral College point out that it balances the interests of citizens in both large and small states by requiring candidates to seek votes in less populous states whose interests might otherwise be ignored. In addition, under the reform, a state could award its Electoral College votes to a presidential candidate who lost the state’s popular vote.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Judicial Watch​

This doesn't go against the Constitution at all. That is wishful thinking on your part. You will have a very difficult time proving that it does go against the Constitution. Bravo, Colorado.

Let's face it - The only hope that Repubs have of winning another Presidential election is the Electoral College. Repubs will NEVER win the popular vote in a Presidential election again, at least not during the next 20 - 30 years.

Not without Russia's help, anyway.

Really? Explain how a state can make changes to how that state's Electoral College votes are determined and not violate the Constitution. I'm all ears!

Because there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that stipulates that a state must award its EC votes based on who wins the state's popular vote. There may be state laws that direct how EC votes are allocated, but there is nothing in the Constitution about this. And state laws can be changed, as Colorado just illustrated.

It's all about them states' rights, ain't it Repubs?

Except the US Federal Government promises to ensure a REPUBLICAN democracy to each State. Changing the peoples vote is NOT Democracy and is not a Republican form of Government.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Democrats are a bunch of criminals.
They fully intend on stealing the next presidential election by passing laws that assure that regardless how their state votes, they will award their electoral votes to which ever candidate wins the popular vote.
This goes directly against the constitution and is an assault on the election process.

All Democrats have to do is generate enough fake votes in Blue States using illegal voters...and then Colorado would award their electoral votes to the fake winner.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Colorado Open Records Act lawsuit on behalf of reporter Todd Shepherd against Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold for records of communications related to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would award Colorado’s presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of whether Colorado’s voters chose that candidate (Todd Shepherd v Jena Griswold in her official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State (No. 2019-cv-032310)).

The suit was filed after Griswold refused to turn over certain documents in response to a February 4, 2019, open records request for records about the Electoral College debate.

On February 21, 2019, the Colorado House passed the National Popular Vote bill and sent it to Governor Jared Polis. Colorado Secretary of State Griswold is a critic of the Electoral College and applauded Gov. Polis’s signing of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Currently, most states award all their Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. But, as described here by the National Conference of State Legislatures, when a state, such as Colorado, “passes legislation to join the National Popular Vote Compact, it pledges that all of that state’s electoral votes will be given to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide, rather than the candidate who won the vote in just that state. These bills will take effect only when states with a majority of the electoral votes have passed similar legislation and joined the compact.”

Five times a presidential candidate has won the “popular vote” but lost the election, most recently Hillary Clinton. Many opponents of President Trump have proposed undoing the Electoral College. Supporters of the Electoral College point out that it balances the interests of citizens in both large and small states by requiring candidates to seek votes in less populous states whose interests might otherwise be ignored. In addition, under the reform, a state could award its Electoral College votes to a presidential candidate who lost the state’s popular vote.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Judicial Watch​

This doesn't go against the Constitution at all. That is wishful thinking on your part. You will have a very difficult time proving that it does go against the Constitution. Bravo, Colorado.

Let's face it - The only hope that Repubs have of winning another Presidential election is the Electoral College. Repubs will NEVER win the popular vote in a Presidential election again, at least not during the next 20 - 30 years.

Not without Russia's help, anyway.

You might want to read Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3. While you're at it, you might want to read the rest of the document as well, you appear to be really ignorant about it.

.

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

So what am I missing?

enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State,

That.

.

What Agreement do you think they are entering into? Their decision is just for their state, and is not binding on any other state, just as no other state has any binding agreements on them.

It is EVEN called an interstate Compact, it is IN FACT an agreement between the several States to conspire and violate the rule of law and the sanctity of the votes cast by the residents of that and the several States involved in this ILLEGAL agreement.

 

[Moscow Mitch McTraitor]

Democrats are a bunch of criminals.
They fully intend on stealing the next presidential election by passing laws that assure that regardless how their state votes, they will award their electoral votes to which ever candidate wins the popular vote.
This goes directly against the constitution and is an assault on the election process.

All Democrats have to do is generate enough fake votes in Blue States using illegal voters...and then Colorado would award their electoral votes to the fake winner.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Colorado Open Records Act lawsuit on behalf of reporter Todd Shepherd against Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold for records of communications related to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would award Colorado’s presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of whether Colorado’s voters chose that candidate (Todd Shepherd v Jena Griswold in her official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State (No. 2019-cv-032310)).

The suit was filed after Griswold refused to turn over certain documents in response to a February 4, 2019, open records request for records about the Electoral College debate.

On February 21, 2019, the Colorado House passed the National Popular Vote bill and sent it to Governor Jared Polis. Colorado Secretary of State Griswold is a critic of the Electoral College and applauded Gov. Polis’s signing of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Currently, most states award all their Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. But, as described here by the National Conference of State Legislatures, when a state, such as Colorado, “passes legislation to join the National Popular Vote Compact, it pledges that all of that state’s electoral votes will be given to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide, rather than the candidate who won the vote in just that state. These bills will take effect only when states with a majority of the electoral votes have passed similar legislation and joined the compact.”

Five times a presidential candidate has won the “popular vote” but lost the election, most recently Hillary Clinton. Many opponents of President Trump have proposed undoing the Electoral College. Supporters of the Electoral College point out that it balances the interests of citizens in both large and small states by requiring candidates to seek votes in less populous states whose interests might otherwise be ignored. In addition, under the reform, a state could award its Electoral College votes to a presidential candidate who lost the state’s popular vote.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Judicial Watch​

This doesn't go against the Constitution at all. That is wishful thinking on your part. You will have a very difficult time proving that it does go against the Constitution. Bravo, Colorado.

Let's face it - The only hope that Repubs have of winning another Presidential election is the Electoral College. Repubs will NEVER win the popular vote in a Presidential election again, at least not during the next 20 - 30 years.

Not without Russia's help, anyway.

Really? Explain how a state can make changes to how that state's Electoral College votes are determined and not violate the Constitution. I'm all ears!

Because there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that stipulates that a state must award its EC votes based on who wins the state's popular vote. There may be state laws that direct how EC votes are allocated, but there is nothing in the Constitution about this. And state laws can be changed, as Colorado just illustrated.

It's all about them states' rights, ain't it Repubs?

Except the US Federal Government promises to ensure a REPUBLICAN democracy to each State. Changing the peoples vote is NOT Democracy and is not a Republican form of Government.

Your definition of "Republican" government is not the definition in the Constitution. The Constitution states absolutely nothing about how electoral votes should be allocated in regards to the popular vote in each state vs the entire country.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Democrats are a bunch of criminals.
They fully intend on stealing the next presidential election by passing laws that assure that regardless how their state votes, they will award their electoral votes to which ever candidate wins the popular vote.
This goes directly against the constitution and is an assault on the election process.

All Democrats have to do is generate enough fake votes in Blue States using illegal voters...and then Colorado would award their electoral votes to the fake winner.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Colorado Open Records Act lawsuit on behalf of reporter Todd Shepherd against Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold for records of communications related to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would award Colorado’s presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of whether Colorado’s voters chose that candidate (Todd Shepherd v Jena Griswold in her official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State (No. 2019-cv-032310)).

The suit was filed after Griswold refused to turn over certain documents in response to a February 4, 2019, open records request for records about the Electoral College debate.

On February 21, 2019, the Colorado House passed the National Popular Vote bill and sent it to Governor Jared Polis. Colorado Secretary of State Griswold is a critic of the Electoral College and applauded Gov. Polis’s signing of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Currently, most states award all their Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. But, as described here by the National Conference of State Legislatures, when a state, such as Colorado, “passes legislation to join the National Popular Vote Compact, it pledges that all of that state’s electoral votes will be given to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide, rather than the candidate who won the vote in just that state. These bills will take effect only when states with a majority of the electoral votes have passed similar legislation and joined the compact.”

Five times a presidential candidate has won the “popular vote” but lost the election, most recently Hillary Clinton. Many opponents of President Trump have proposed undoing the Electoral College. Supporters of the Electoral College point out that it balances the interests of citizens in both large and small states by requiring candidates to seek votes in less populous states whose interests might otherwise be ignored. In addition, under the reform, a state could award its Electoral College votes to a presidential candidate who lost the state’s popular vote.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Judicial Watch​

Democrats are a bunch of criminals.
They fully intend on stealing the next presidential election by passing laws that assure that regardless how their state votes, they will award their electoral votes to which ever candidate wins the popular vote.
This goes directly against the constitution and is an assault on the election process.

All Democrats have to do is generate enough fake votes in Blue States using illegal voters...and then Colorado would award their electoral votes to the fake winner.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Colorado Open Records Act lawsuit on behalf of reporter Todd Shepherd against Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold for records of communications related to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would award Colorado’s presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of whether Colorado’s voters chose that candidate (Todd Shepherd v Jena Griswold in her official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State (No. 2019-cv-032310)).

The suit was filed after Griswold refused to turn over certain documents in response to a February 4, 2019, open records request for records about the Electoral College debate.

On February 21, 2019, the Colorado House passed the National Popular Vote bill and sent it to Governor Jared Polis. Colorado Secretary of State Griswold is a critic of the Electoral College and applauded Gov. Polis’s signing of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Currently, most states award all their Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. But, as described here by the National Conference of State Legislatures, when a state, such as Colorado, “passes legislation to join the National Popular Vote Compact, it pledges that all of that state’s electoral votes will be given to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide, rather than the candidate who won the vote in just that state. These bills will take effect only when states with a majority of the electoral votes have passed similar legislation and joined the compact.”

Five times a presidential candidate has won the “popular vote” but lost the election, most recently Hillary Clinton. Many opponents of President Trump have proposed undoing the Electoral College. Supporters of the Electoral College point out that it balances the interests of citizens in both large and small states by requiring candidates to seek votes in less populous states whose interests might otherwise be ignored. In addition, under the reform, a state could award its Electoral College votes to a presidential candidate who lost the state’s popular vote.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Judicial Watch​

This doesn't go against the Constitution at all. That is wishful thinking on your part. You will have a very difficult time proving that it does go against the Constitution. Bravo, Colorado.

Let's face it - The only hope that Repubs have of winning another Presidential election is the Electoral College. Repubs will NEVER win the popular vote in a Presidential election again, at least not during the next 20 - 30 years.

Not without Russia's help, anyway.

You might want to read Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3. While you're at it, you might want to read the rest of the document as well, you appear to be really ignorant about it.

.

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

So what am I missing?

The part about "enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State" Gumbo.

 

[Moscow Mitch McTraitor]

This doesn't go against the Constitution at all. That is wishful thinking on your part. You will have a very difficult time proving that it does go against the Constitution. Bravo, Colorado.

Let's face it - The only hope that Repubs have of winning another Presidential election is the Electoral College. Repubs will NEVER win the popular vote in a Presidential election again, at least not during the next 20 - 30 years.

Not without Russia's help, anyway.

You might want to read Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3. While you're at it, you might want to read the rest of the document as well, you appear to be really ignorant about it.

.

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

So what am I missing?

enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State,

That.

.

What Agreement do you think they are entering into? Their decision is just for their state, and is not binding on any other state, just as no other state has any binding agreements on them.

It is EVEN called an interstate Compact, it is IN FACT an agreement between the several States to conspire and violate the rule of law and the sanctity of the votes cast by the residents of that and the several States involved in this ILLEGAL agreement.

Call it what you want, each state can independently pass their own law and achieve the same thing. The "compact" is not necessary.

 

[Marion Morrison]

You might want to read Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3. While you're at it, you might want to read the rest of the document as well, you appear to be really ignorant about it.

.

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

So what am I missing?

enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State,

That.

.

What Agreement do you think they are entering into? Their decision is just for their state, and is not binding on any other state, just as no other state has any binding agreements on them.

It is EVEN called an interstate Compact, it is IN FACT an agreement between the several States to conspire and violate the rule of law and the sanctity of the votes cast by the residents of that and the several States involved in this ILLEGAL agreement.

Call it what you want, each state can independently pass their own law and achieve the same thing. The "compact" is not necessary.

The thing is unConstitutional on multiple levels.

 

[OKTexas]

Recent, no, the original one.

.

Yep, after Moscow Mitch and the Repugs stole a Supreme Court seat that rightfully belonged to Obama in an egregious, unprecedented move that never occurred before in this country's history. No coincidence there.

And, of course, you anti-democratic Repugs were outraged by that power grab.

OMG, you're not only boring and ignorant, you're redundant in the process, that's a sure sign of a low IQ. Mtich was just following the Biden rule. LMAO

.

The Biden rule that never existed except in some tiny corner of Repugs' minds? Got it, goober.

In his own words.


.

Did the Senate ever take a vote on the so-called "Biden Rule"? Was it ever used from 1992 - 2015? Nope.

There wasn't even a Supreme Court vacancy at the time Biden gave this speech.

Your shit is weak and disingenuous. I expect nothing less from a Repug.

Of course there wasn't a vacancy at the time, Biden and his comrades were trying to be preemptive and it worked, just not the way they imagined it. LMAO And the republicans stole nothing, there is no rule or law that says when the senate is to take up a nomination, or at all for that matter. The commies have slow walked nominations for decades when a republican was in office.

.

.

 

[MarathonMike]

Democrats are a bunch of criminals.
They fully intend on stealing the next presidential election by passing laws that assure that regardless how their state votes, they will award their electoral votes to which ever candidate wins the popular vote.
This goes directly against the constitution and is an assault on the election process.

All Democrats have to do is generate enough fake votes in Blue States using illegal voters...and then Colorado would award their electoral votes to the fake winner.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Colorado Open Records Act lawsuit on behalf of reporter Todd Shepherd against Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold for records of communications related to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would award Colorado’s presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of whether Colorado’s voters chose that candidate (Todd Shepherd v Jena Griswold in her official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State (No. 2019-cv-032310)).

The suit was filed after Griswold refused to turn over certain documents in response to a February 4, 2019, open records request for records about the Electoral College debate.

On February 21, 2019, the Colorado House passed the National Popular Vote bill and sent it to Governor Jared Polis. Colorado Secretary of State Griswold is a critic of the Electoral College and applauded Gov. Polis’s signing of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Currently, most states award all their Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. But, as described here by the National Conference of State Legislatures, when a state, such as Colorado, “passes legislation to join the National Popular Vote Compact, it pledges that all of that state’s electoral votes will be given to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide, rather than the candidate who won the vote in just that state. These bills will take effect only when states with a majority of the electoral votes have passed similar legislation and joined the compact.”

Five times a presidential candidate has won the “popular vote” but lost the election, most recently Hillary Clinton. Many opponents of President Trump have proposed undoing the Electoral College. Supporters of the Electoral College point out that it balances the interests of citizens in both large and small states by requiring candidates to seek votes in less populous states whose interests might otherwise be ignored. In addition, under the reform, a state could award its Electoral College votes to a presidential candidate who lost the state’s popular vote.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Judicial Watch​

This doesn't go against the Constitution at all. That is wishful thinking on your part. You will have a very difficult time proving that it does go against the Constitution. Bravo, Colorado.

Let's face it - The only hope that Repubs have of winning another Presidential election is the Electoral College. Repubs will NEVER win the popular vote in a Presidential election again, at least not during the next 20 - 30 years.

Not without Russia's help, anyway.

Really? Explain how a state can make changes to how that state's Electoral College votes are determined and not violate the Constitution. I'm all ears!

Because there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that stipulates that a state must award its EC votes based on who wins the state's popular vote. There may be state laws that direct how EC votes are allocated, but there is nothing in the Constitution about this. And state laws can be changed, as Colorado just illustrated.

It's all about them states' rights, ain't it Repubs?

Except the US Federal Government promises to ensure a REPUBLICAN democracy to each State. Changing the peoples vote is NOT Democracy and is not a Republican form of Government.

Your definition of "Republican" government is not the definition in the Constitution. The Constitution states absolutely nothing about how electoral votes should be allocated in regards to the popular vote in each state vs the entire country.

NPVIC is an obvious attempt by a few states to run an 'end around' the Electoral College by playing games with the states electoral votes. They can take it to the Supreme Court if they want, they will lose.

 

[Moscow Mitch McTraitor]

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

So what am I missing?

enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State,

That.

.

What Agreement do you think they are entering into? Their decision is just for their state, and is not binding on any other state, just as no other state has any binding agreements on them.

It is EVEN called an interstate Compact, it is IN FACT an agreement between the several States to conspire and violate the rule of law and the sanctity of the votes cast by the residents of that and the several States involved in this ILLEGAL agreement.

Call it what you want, each state can independently pass their own law and achieve the same thing. The "compact" is not necessary.

The thing is unConstitutional on multiple levels.

Nope, wishful thinking on your part. If the "compact" is unconstitutional, there is nothing preventing each state from passing their own, similar law.

Several Repub-run states like Texas, Alabama, and Missouri have recently passed "copy cat" abortion laws, trying to make abortions virtually impossible in these states, by instituting unrealistic facility requirements for abortion clinics (hallways in abortion clinics must be a certain width, etc.). This is essentially a "compact" to make abortion extremely difficult in several states, which infringes on the rights of women in these states.

Of course, you hypocritical Repugs have no problem with these types of "compacts".

 

[Moscow Mitch McTraitor]

Yep, after Moscow Mitch and the Repugs stole a Supreme Court seat that rightfully belonged to Obama in an egregious, unprecedented move that never occurred before in this country's history. No coincidence there.

And, of course, you anti-democratic Repugs were outraged by that power grab.

OMG, you're not only boring and ignorant, you're redundant in the process, that's a sure sign of a low IQ. Mtich was just following the Biden rule. LMAO

.

The Biden rule that never existed except in some tiny corner of Repugs' minds? Got it, goober.

In his own words.


.

Did the Senate ever take a vote on the so-called "Biden Rule"? Was it ever used from 1992 - 2015? Nope.

There wasn't even a Supreme Court vacancy at the time Biden gave this speech.

Your shit is weak and disingenuous. I expect nothing less from a Repug.

Of course there wasn't a vacancy at the time, Biden and his comrades were trying to preemptive and it worked, just not the way they imagined it. LMAO And the republicans stole nothing, there is no rule or law that says when the senate is to take up a nomination, or at all for that matter. The commies have slow walked nominations for decades when a republican was in office.

.

.

Turnabout is fair play, Repug. Don't whine when Dems pull the same trick on you assholes in the future. But you will, of course.

 

[OKTexas]

Democrats are a bunch of criminals.
They fully intend on stealing the next presidential election by passing laws that assure that regardless how their state votes, they will award their electoral votes to which ever candidate wins the popular vote.
This goes directly against the constitution and is an assault on the election process.

All Democrats have to do is generate enough fake votes in Blue States using illegal voters...and then Colorado would award their electoral votes to the fake winner.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Colorado Open Records Act lawsuit on behalf of reporter Todd Shepherd against Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold for records of communications related to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would award Colorado’s presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of whether Colorado’s voters chose that candidate (Todd Shepherd v Jena Griswold in her official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State (No. 2019-cv-032310)).

The suit was filed after Griswold refused to turn over certain documents in response to a February 4, 2019, open records request for records about the Electoral College debate.

On February 21, 2019, the Colorado House passed the National Popular Vote bill and sent it to Governor Jared Polis. Colorado Secretary of State Griswold is a critic of the Electoral College and applauded Gov. Polis’s signing of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Currently, most states award all their Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. But, as described here by the National Conference of State Legislatures, when a state, such as Colorado, “passes legislation to join the National Popular Vote Compact, it pledges that all of that state’s electoral votes will be given to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide, rather than the candidate who won the vote in just that state. These bills will take effect only when states with a majority of the electoral votes have passed similar legislation and joined the compact.”

Five times a presidential candidate has won the “popular vote” but lost the election, most recently Hillary Clinton. Many opponents of President Trump have proposed undoing the Electoral College. Supporters of the Electoral College point out that it balances the interests of citizens in both large and small states by requiring candidates to seek votes in less populous states whose interests might otherwise be ignored. In addition, under the reform, a state could award its Electoral College votes to a presidential candidate who lost the state’s popular vote.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Judicial Watch​

This doesn't go against the Constitution at all. That is wishful thinking on your part. You will have a very difficult time proving that it does go against the Constitution. Bravo, Colorado.

Let's face it - The only hope that Repubs have of winning another Presidential election is the Electoral College. Repubs will NEVER win the popular vote in a Presidential election again, at least not during the next 20 - 30 years.

Not without Russia's help, anyway.

Really? Explain how a state can make changes to how that state's Electoral College votes are determined and not violate the Constitution. I'm all ears!

Because there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that stipulates that a state must award its EC votes based on who wins the state's popular vote. There may be state laws that direct how EC votes are allocated, but there is nothing in the Constitution about this. And state laws can be changed, as Colorado just illustrated.

It's all about them states' rights, ain't it Repubs?

Except the US Federal Government promises to ensure a REPUBLICAN democracy to each State. Changing the peoples vote is NOT Democracy and is not a Republican form of Government.

Your definition of "Republican" government is not the definition in the Constitution. The Constitution states absolutely nothing about how electoral votes should be allocated in regards to the popular vote in each state vs the entire country.

Electors belong to the States and their citizens, not the country. No State can bind the future votes of their citizens, just like no legislature can bind votes of future legislatures.

.

 

[Moscow Mitch McTraitor]

This doesn't go against the Constitution at all. That is wishful thinking on your part. You will have a very difficult time proving that it does go against the Constitution. Bravo, Colorado.

Let's face it - The only hope that Repubs have of winning another Presidential election is the Electoral College. Repubs will NEVER win the popular vote in a Presidential election again, at least not during the next 20 - 30 years.

Not without Russia's help, anyway.

Really? Explain how a state can make changes to how that state's Electoral College votes are determined and not violate the Constitution. I'm all ears!

Because there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that stipulates that a state must award its EC votes based on who wins the state's popular vote. There may be state laws that direct how EC votes are allocated, but there is nothing in the Constitution about this. And state laws can be changed, as Colorado just illustrated.

It's all about them states' rights, ain't it Repubs?

Except the US Federal Government promises to ensure a REPUBLICAN democracy to each State. Changing the peoples vote is NOT Democracy and is not a Republican form of Government.

Your definition of "Republican" government is not the definition in the Constitution. The Constitution states absolutely nothing about how electoral votes should be allocated in regards to the popular vote in each state vs the entire country.

NPVIC is an obvious attempt by a few states to run an 'end around' the Electoral College by playing games with the states electoral votes. They can take it to the Supreme Court if they want, they will lose.

There is no "end around". Many/Most states have passed their own law in the past on how they allocate their EC votes. And they are free to do so again.

It's not unconstitutional what Colorado did, you Repugs just don't like it.

 

[Moscow Mitch McTraitor]

This doesn't go against the Constitution at all. That is wishful thinking on your part. You will have a very difficult time proving that it does go against the Constitution. Bravo, Colorado.

Let's face it - The only hope that Repubs have of winning another Presidential election is the Electoral College. Repubs will NEVER win the popular vote in a Presidential election again, at least not during the next 20 - 30 years.

Not without Russia's help, anyway.

Really? Explain how a state can make changes to how that state's Electoral College votes are determined and not violate the Constitution. I'm all ears!

Because there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that stipulates that a state must award its EC votes based on who wins the state's popular vote. There may be state laws that direct how EC votes are allocated, but there is nothing in the Constitution about this. And state laws can be changed, as Colorado just illustrated.

It's all about them states' rights, ain't it Repubs?

Except the US Federal Government promises to ensure a REPUBLICAN democracy to each State. Changing the peoples vote is NOT Democracy and is not a Republican form of Government.

Your definition of "Republican" government is not the definition in the Constitution. The Constitution states absolutely nothing about how electoral votes should be allocated in regards to the popular vote in each state vs the entire country.

Electors belong to the States and their citizens, not the country. No State can bind the future votes of their citizens, just like no legislature can bind votes of future legislatures.

.

OK, so why haven't previous EC laws passed by the states been deemed unconstitutional?

 

[OKTexas]

enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State,

That.

.

What Agreement do you think they are entering into? Their decision is just for their state, and is not binding on any other state, just as no other state has any binding agreements on them.

It is EVEN called an interstate Compact, it is IN FACT an agreement between the several States to conspire and violate the rule of law and the sanctity of the votes cast by the residents of that and the several States involved in this ILLEGAL agreement.

Call it what you want, each state can independently pass their own law and achieve the same thing. The "compact" is not necessary.

The thing is unConstitutional on multiple levels.

Nope, wishful thinking on your part. If the "compact" is unconstitutional, there is nothing preventing each state from passing their own, similar law.

Several Repub-run states like Texas, Alabama, and Missouri have recently passed "copy cat" abortion laws, trying to make abortions virtually impossible in these states, by instituting unrealistic facility requirements for abortion clinics (hallways in abortion clinics must be a certain width, etc.). This is essentially a "compact" to make abortion extremely difficult in several states, which infringes on the rights of women in these states.

Of course, you hypocritical Repugs have no problem with these types of "compacts".

Wow, great deflection. Too bad it's completely off topic and ridiculous. How many of those laws were dependent on the actions of other States?

.

 

[Moscow Mitch McTraitor]

What Agreement do you think they are entering into? Their decision is just for their state, and is not binding on any other state, just as no other state has any binding agreements on them.

It is EVEN called an interstate Compact, it is IN FACT an agreement between the several States to conspire and violate the rule of law and the sanctity of the votes cast by the residents of that and the several States involved in this ILLEGAL agreement.

Call it what you want, each state can independently pass their own law and achieve the same thing. The "compact" is not necessary.

The thing is unConstitutional on multiple levels.

Nope, wishful thinking on your part. If the "compact" is unconstitutional, there is nothing preventing each state from passing their own, similar law.

Several Repub-run states like Texas, Alabama, and Missouri have recently passed "copy cat" abortion laws, trying to make abortions virtually impossible in these states, by instituting unrealistic facility requirements for abortion clinics (hallways in abortion clinics must be a certain width, etc.). This is essentially a "compact" to make abortion extremely difficult in several states, which infringes on the rights of women in these states.

Of course, you hypocritical Repugs have no problem with these types of "compacts".

Wow, great deflection. Too bad it's completely off topic and ridiculous. How many of those laws were dependent on the actions of other States?

.

It's not off-topic at all. You have a problem with states conspiring with each other. Well, several Repub states have conspired when it comes to limiting abortion access.