Colorado Rigging Next Election

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What happened to Trump's investigation? The Secretary of States in the blue states refused to hand over voter information. That's called obstructing justice for you libtard out there!

They legally couldn't turn all that information over. There was a court case to determine that, don't you remember?

Where is your link to the court case?

Oh, that's right! Links to your imagination do not work!

Donald Trump’s Voter Fraud Commission Just Suffered a Court Defeat

That was one state, dumbass!

Can't you libtards ever learn to read?

If Trump could have legally gotten the information, he would have dumb ass.

The states could have sanitized the information as to PII and then could have submitted it. They refused! Dumbass!

 

[bendog]

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!

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.Article II, Section 1, Clause 2

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!

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.Article II, Section 1, Clause 2

Correct, the state shall appoint the electors, but it doesnt say that the state is allowed to say how the electoral votes are cast, that is for the states general election.

What colorado, and other states are trying to do is bypass the electoral college and force the electors of those states to vote against the voters wishes. It's essentially the legislature saying "we are going to delegate our electoral votes, not the citizens", basically removing the elector process.

When someone votes, they are not voting for a president, they are actually voting on a slate of electors which are chosen by the parties they represent. What these compact states are doing is removing the legally voted slate of electors, and placing their own in its place, or at least forcing them to vote against their wishes which really equates to election fraud when you think about it, because they are trying to alter the wishes of the people, and thus alter the election results. This is no different than someone stealing a ballot box and changing all the votes.

For all states entering this compact, they have completely sidestepped the whole reason for the electoral college, and run the risk of negating their electors. For these states, their electoral vote count should be reduced to zero.

Nothing prevents a state elector from voting for a candidate who did not win the popular vote in his state. In fact THAT is the whole point of the EC. To deny the choice of the maj of voters in that state. And the legislature may appoint electors for that purpose. For example, even if Gore won a close recount against W, the legisalature would have been perfectly within its powers to determine W was the real winner. Or assuming an elector determined Trump was a threat to the republic, his/her duty would actually have been to vote AGAINST Trump, even if Trump won a maj in the state.

Your complaint is that somehow the constitution says the state legislators cannot agree to appoint electors who will vote for the national pop vote winner. There's nothing in the const to prevent that. You also complain that states cannot agree among themselves how to appoint electors, but again the const just doesn't address that. In fact, I think the const encourages legislators to use their office to control winners of elections, and the const absolutely gives voters the power to determine who is in their legislatures.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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!

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.Article II, Section 1, Clause 2

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!

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.Article II, Section 1, Clause 2

Correct, the state shall appoint the electors, but it doesnt say that the state is allowed to say how the electoral votes are cast, that is for the states general election.

What colorado, and other states are trying to do is bypass the electoral college and force the electors of those states to vote against the voters wishes. It's essentially the legislature saying "we are going to delegate our electoral votes, not the citizens", basically removing the elector process.

When someone votes, they are not voting for a president, they are actually voting on a slate of electors which are chosen by the parties they represent. What these compact states are doing is removing the legally voted slate of electors, and placing their own in its place, or at least forcing them to vote against their wishes which really equates to election fraud when you think about it, because they are trying to alter the wishes of the people, and thus alter the election results. This is no different than someone stealing a ballot box and changing all the votes.

For all states entering this compact, they have completely sidestepped the whole reason for the electoral college, and run the risk of negating their electors. For these states, their electoral vote count should be reduced to zero.

Nothing prevents a state elector from voting for a candidate who did not win the popular vote in his state. In fact THAT is the whole point of the EC. To deny the choice of the maj of voters in that state. And the legislature may appoint electors for that purpose. For example, even if Gore won a close recount against W, the legisalature would have been perfectly within its powers to determine W was the real winner. Or assuming an elector determined Trump was a threat to the republic, his/her duty would actually have been to vote AGAINST Trump, even if Trump won a maj in the state.

Your complaint is that somehow the constitution says the state legislators cannot agree to appoint electors who will vote for the national pop vote winner. There's nothing in the const to prevent that. You also complain that states cannot agree among themselves how to appoint electors, but again the const just doesn't address that. In fact, I think the const encourages legislators to use their office to control winners of elections, and the const absolutely gives voters the power to determine who is in their legislatures.

Exactly how will they determine the national popular vote winner, since one of the purposes of the electoral college was not to have to even do that? The federal government (i.e. Congress) has no authority under the Constitution to do anything but accept the electoral votes. How will colorado or any other state determine the national popular vote winner if it is never officially talied?

 

[bendog]

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!

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.Article II, Section 1, Clause 2

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!

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.Article II, Section 1, Clause 2

Correct, the state shall appoint the electors, but it doesnt say that the state is allowed to say how the electoral votes are cast, that is for the states general election.

What colorado, and other states are trying to do is bypass the electoral college and force the electors of those states to vote against the voters wishes. It's essentially the legislature saying "we are going to delegate our electoral votes, not the citizens", basically removing the elector process.

When someone votes, they are not voting for a president, they are actually voting on a slate of electors which are chosen by the parties they represent. What these compact states are doing is removing the legally voted slate of electors, and placing their own in its place, or at least forcing them to vote against their wishes which really equates to election fraud when you think about it, because they are trying to alter the wishes of the people, and thus alter the election results. This is no different than someone stealing a ballot box and changing all the votes.

For all states entering this compact, they have completely sidestepped the whole reason for the electoral college, and run the risk of negating their electors. For these states, their electoral vote count should be reduced to zero.

Nothing prevents a state elector from voting for a candidate who did not win the popular vote in his state. In fact THAT is the whole point of the EC. To deny the choice of the maj of voters in that state. And the legislature may appoint electors for that purpose. For example, even if Gore won a close recount against W, the legisalature would have been perfectly within its powers to determine W was the real winner. Or assuming an elector determined Trump was a threat to the republic, his/her duty would actually have been to vote AGAINST Trump, even if Trump won a maj in the state.

Your complaint is that somehow the constitution says the state legislators cannot agree to appoint electors who will vote for the national pop vote winner. There's nothing in the const to prevent that. You also complain that states cannot agree among themselves how to appoint electors, but again the const just doesn't address that. In fact, I think the const encourages legislators to use their office to control winners of elections, and the const absolutely gives voters the power to determine who is in their legislatures.

Exactly how will they determine the national popular vote winner, since one of the purposes of the electoral college was not to have to even do that? The federal government (i.e. Congress) has no authority under the Constitution to do anything but accept the electoral votes. How will colorado or any other state determine the national popular vote winner if it is never officially talied?

'where do you get the notion that the national popular vote wasn't even to be counted? You do know we have vote totals for the early potus' elections, I assume.

 

[mudwhistle]

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!

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.Article II, Section 1, Clause 2

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!

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.Article II, Section 1, Clause 2

Correct, the state shall appoint the electors, but it doesnt say that the state is allowed to say how the electoral votes are cast, that is for the states general election.

What colorado, and other states are trying to do is bypass the electoral college and force the electors of those states to vote against the voters wishes. It's essentially the legislature saying "we are going to delegate our electoral votes, not the citizens", basically removing the elector process.

When someone votes, they are not voting for a president, they are actually voting on a slate of electors which are chosen by the parties they represent. What these compact states are doing is removing the legally voted slate of electors, and placing their own in its place, or at least forcing them to vote against their wishes which really equates to election fraud when you think about it, because they are trying to alter the wishes of the people, and thus alter the election results. This is no different than someone stealing a ballot box and changing all the votes.

For all states entering this compact, they have completely sidestepped the whole reason for the electoral college, and run the risk of negating their electors. For these states, their electoral vote count should be reduced to zero.

Nothing prevents a state elector from voting for a candidate who did not win the popular vote in his state. In fact THAT is the whole point of the EC. To deny the choice of the maj of voters in that state. And the legislature may appoint electors for that purpose. For example, even if Gore won a close recount against W, the legisalature would have been perfectly within its powers to determine W was the real winner. Or assuming an elector determined Trump was a threat to the republic, his/her duty would actually have been to vote AGAINST Trump, even if Trump won a maj in the state.

Your complaint is that somehow the constitution says the state legislators cannot agree to appoint electors who will vote for the national pop vote winner. There's nothing in the const to prevent that. You also complain that states cannot agree among themselves how to appoint electors, but again the const just doesn't address that. In fact, I think the const encourages legislators to use their office to control winners of elections, and the const absolutely gives voters the power to determine who is in their legislatures.

Yep. ... Trump is a serious threat to the establishment that has been fucking us from Washington for decades.
I can see why they'd want to prevent him from taking office and instead put one of their puppets in there.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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​

As I have stated on several other occasions if 2016 were reversed Clinton winning the EC and losing the popular vote most of these same left wing assholes would have no problems with the EC>

The republicans have lost the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections. No wonder you cling to an obviously flawed system.

The system is designed to prevent Democrats from stealing elections.
Democrats are just better at cheating than Republicans.......but election laws thwart them sometimes.

Of course that's just complete nonsense.

 

[mudwhistle]

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​

As I have stated on several other occasions if 2016 were reversed Clinton winning the EC and losing the popular vote most of these same left wing assholes would have no problems with the EC>

The republicans have lost the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections. No wonder you cling to an obviously flawed system.

The system is designed to prevent Democrats from stealing elections.
Democrats are just better at cheating than Republicans.......but election laws thwart them sometimes.

Of course that's just complete nonsense.

Oh, so Hillary won?

When did this happen????

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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​

As I have stated on several other occasions if 2016 were reversed Clinton winning the EC and losing the popular vote most of these same left wing assholes would have no problems with the EC>

The republicans have lost the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections. No wonder you cling to an obviously flawed system.

The system is designed to prevent Democrats from stealing elections.
Democrats are just better at cheating than Republicans.......but election laws thwart them sometimes.

Of course that's just complete nonsense.

Oh, so Hillary won?

When did this happen????

LOL....What?

 

[ThisIsMe]

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!

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.Article II, Section 1, Clause 2

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!

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.Article II, Section 1, Clause 2

Correct, the state shall appoint the electors, but it doesnt say that the state is allowed to say how the electoral votes are cast, that is for the states general election.

What colorado, and other states are trying to do is bypass the electoral college and force the electors of those states to vote against the voters wishes. It's essentially the legislature saying "we are going to delegate our electoral votes, not the citizens", basically removing the elector process.

When someone votes, they are not voting for a president, they are actually voting on a slate of electors which are chosen by the parties they represent. What these compact states are doing is removing the legally voted slate of electors, and placing their own in its place, or at least forcing them to vote against their wishes which really equates to election fraud when you think about it, because they are trying to alter the wishes of the people, and thus alter the election results. This is no different than someone stealing a ballot box and changing all the votes.

For all states entering this compact, they have completely sidestepped the whole reason for the electoral college, and run the risk of negating their electors. For these states, their electoral vote count should be reduced to zero.

Nothing prevents a state elector from voting for a candidate who did not win the popular vote in his state. In fact THAT is the whole point of the EC. To deny the choice of the maj of voters in that state. And the legislature may appoint electors for that purpose. For example, even if Gore won a close recount against W, the legisalature would have been perfectly within its powers to determine W was the real winner. Or assuming an elector determined Trump was a threat to the republic, his/her duty would actually have been to vote AGAINST Trump, even if Trump won a maj in the state.

Your complaint is that somehow the constitution says the state legislators cannot agree to appoint electors who will vote for the national pop vote winner. There's nothing in the const to prevent that. You also complain that states cannot agree among themselves how to appoint electors, but again the const just doesn't address that. In fact, I think the const encourages legislators to use their office to control winners of elections, and the const absolutely gives voters the power to determine who is in their legislatures.

Correct, it is possible for electors to go against the general election majority, it's rare, but it does happen.

What these state legislatures have decided is that, they dont care what the electors decide, they are going to determine what happens with their electoral votes. This means the electoral process, and the vote of the citizens of those states have been nullified, as well as the electors.

In essence, There is no need for an electoral college in those states, because the legislature has already determined where their votes will go.

 

[mudwhistle]

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!

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.Article II, Section 1, Clause 2

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!

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.Article II, Section 1, Clause 2

Correct, the state shall appoint the electors, but it doesnt say that the state is allowed to say how the electoral votes are cast, that is for the states general election.

What colorado, and other states are trying to do is bypass the electoral college and force the electors of those states to vote against the voters wishes. It's essentially the legislature saying "we are going to delegate our electoral votes, not the citizens", basically removing the elector process.

When someone votes, they are not voting for a president, they are actually voting on a slate of electors which are chosen by the parties they represent. What these compact states are doing is removing the legally voted slate of electors, and placing their own in its place, or at least forcing them to vote against their wishes which really equates to election fraud when you think about it, because they are trying to alter the wishes of the people, and thus alter the election results. This is no different than someone stealing a ballot box and changing all the votes.

For all states entering this compact, they have completely sidestepped the whole reason for the electoral college, and run the risk of negating their electors. For these states, their electoral vote count should be reduced to zero.

Nothing prevents a state elector from voting for a candidate who did not win the popular vote in his state. In fact THAT is the whole point of the EC. To deny the choice of the maj of voters in that state. And the legislature may appoint electors for that purpose. For example, even if Gore won a close recount against W, the legisalature would have been perfectly within its powers to determine W was the real winner. Or assuming an elector determined Trump was a threat to the republic, his/her duty would actually have been to vote AGAINST Trump, even if Trump won a maj in the state.

Your complaint is that somehow the constitution says the state legislators cannot agree to appoint electors who will vote for the national pop vote winner. There's nothing in the const to prevent that. You also complain that states cannot agree among themselves how to appoint electors, but again the const just doesn't address that. In fact, I think the const encourages legislators to use their office to control winners of elections, and the const absolutely gives voters the power to determine who is in their legislatures.

Correct, it is possible for electors to go against the general election majority, it's rare, but it does happen.

What these state legislatures have decided is that, they dont care what the electors decide, they are going to determine what happens with their electoral votes. This means the electoral process, and the vote of the citizens of those states have been nullified, as well as the electors.

In essence, There is no need for an electoral college in those states, because the legislature has already determined where their votes will go.

So why have an election?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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!

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.Article II, Section 1, Clause 2

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!

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.Article II, Section 1, Clause 2

Correct, the state shall appoint the electors, but it doesnt say that the state is allowed to say how the electoral votes are cast, that is for the states general election.

What colorado, and other states are trying to do is bypass the electoral college and force the electors of those states to vote against the voters wishes. It's essentially the legislature saying "we are going to delegate our electoral votes, not the citizens", basically removing the elector process.

When someone votes, they are not voting for a president, they are actually voting on a slate of electors which are chosen by the parties they represent. What these compact states are doing is removing the legally voted slate of electors, and placing their own in its place, or at least forcing them to vote against their wishes which really equates to election fraud when you think about it, because they are trying to alter the wishes of the people, and thus alter the election results. This is no different than someone stealing a ballot box and changing all the votes.

For all states entering this compact, they have completely sidestepped the whole reason for the electoral college, and run the risk of negating their electors. For these states, their electoral vote count should be reduced to zero.

Nothing prevents a state elector from voting for a candidate who did not win the popular vote in his state. In fact THAT is the whole point of the EC. To deny the choice of the maj of voters in that state. And the legislature may appoint electors for that purpose. For example, even if Gore won a close recount against W, the legisalature would have been perfectly within its powers to determine W was the real winner. Or assuming an elector determined Trump was a threat to the republic, his/her duty would actually have been to vote AGAINST Trump, even if Trump won a maj in the state.

Your complaint is that somehow the constitution says the state legislators cannot agree to appoint electors who will vote for the national pop vote winner. There's nothing in the const to prevent that. You also complain that states cannot agree among themselves how to appoint electors, but again the const just doesn't address that. In fact, I think the const encourages legislators to use their office to control winners of elections, and the const absolutely gives voters the power to determine who is in their legislatures.

Correct, it is possible for electors to go against the general election majority, it's rare, but it does happen.

What these state legislatures have decided is that, they dont care what the electors decide, they are going to determine what happens with their electoral votes. This means the electoral process, and the vote of the citizens of those states have been nullified, as well as the electors.

In essence, There is no need for an electoral college in those states, because the legislature has already determined where their votes will go.

Yup and tis is clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The State may not ignore the voters of the State.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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!

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.Article II, Section 1, Clause 2

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!

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.Article II, Section 1, Clause 2

Correct, the state shall appoint the electors, but it doesnt say that the state is allowed to say how the electoral votes are cast, that is for the states general election.

What colorado, and other states are trying to do is bypass the electoral college and force the electors of those states to vote against the voters wishes. It's essentially the legislature saying "we are going to delegate our electoral votes, not the citizens", basically removing the elector process.

When someone votes, they are not voting for a president, they are actually voting on a slate of electors which are chosen by the parties they represent. What these compact states are doing is removing the legally voted slate of electors, and placing their own in its place, or at least forcing them to vote against their wishes which really equates to election fraud when you think about it, because they are trying to alter the wishes of the people, and thus alter the election results. This is no different than someone stealing a ballot box and changing all the votes.

For all states entering this compact, they have completely sidestepped the whole reason for the electoral college, and run the risk of negating their electors. For these states, their electoral vote count should be reduced to zero.

Nothing prevents a state elector from voting for a candidate who did not win the popular vote in his state. In fact THAT is the whole point of the EC. To deny the choice of the maj of voters in that state. And the legislature may appoint electors for that purpose. For example, even if Gore won a close recount against W, the legisalature would have been perfectly within its powers to determine W was the real winner. Or assuming an elector determined Trump was a threat to the republic, his/her duty would actually have been to vote AGAINST Trump, even if Trump won a maj in the state.

Your complaint is that somehow the constitution says the state legislators cannot agree to appoint electors who will vote for the national pop vote winner. There's nothing in the const to prevent that. You also complain that states cannot agree among themselves how to appoint electors, but again the const just doesn't address that. In fact, I think the const encourages legislators to use their office to control winners of elections, and the const absolutely gives voters the power to determine who is in their legislatures.

Correct, it is possible for electors to go against the general election majority, it's rare, but it does happen.

What these state legislatures have decided is that, they dont care what the electors decide, they are going to determine what happens with their electoral votes. This means the electoral process, and the vote of the citizens of those states have been nullified, as well as the electors.

In essence, There is no need for an electoral college in those states, because the legislature has already determined where their votes will go.

Yup and tis is clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The State may not ignore the voters of the State.

So, constitutionally, the pro compact crowd may have some standing if they could find all electors who would be willing to not be "faithful electors" since the constitution really doesn't say anything beyond that the legislature get to pick the electors, however it does say that the electors must be the one to vote.

What I dont agree with is the legislature being able to arbitrarily say where the votes will go, especially before the electors have even been chosen. They havent even waited to see if they can find electors who would be willing to go along with their compact.

However, as I understand it, each side gets to choose electors, and when the citizens vote, they are not voting for a presidential candidate, they are voting for an elector. Whichever candidate wins the popular vote in that state, their parties electors get to cast votes.

I doubt the republican state legislators will pick electors who will go along with the compact, which means, in that instance, it would be a constitutional problem.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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!

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.Article II, Section 1, Clause 2

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!

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.Article II, Section 1, Clause 2

Correct, the state shall appoint the electors, but it doesnt say that the state is allowed to say how the electoral votes are cast, that is for the states general election.

What colorado, and other states are trying to do is bypass the electoral college and force the electors of those states to vote against the voters wishes. It's essentially the legislature saying "we are going to delegate our electoral votes, not the citizens", basically removing the elector process.

When someone votes, they are not voting for a president, they are actually voting on a slate of electors which are chosen by the parties they represent. What these compact states are doing is removing the legally voted slate of electors, and placing their own in its place, or at least forcing them to vote against their wishes which really equates to election fraud when you think about it, because they are trying to alter the wishes of the people, and thus alter the election results. This is no different than someone stealing a ballot box and changing all the votes.

For all states entering this compact, they have completely sidestepped the whole reason for the electoral college, and run the risk of negating their electors. For these states, their electoral vote count should be reduced to zero.

Nothing prevents a state elector from voting for a candidate who did not win the popular vote in his state. In fact THAT is the whole point of the EC. To deny the choice of the maj of voters in that state. And the legislature may appoint electors for that purpose. For example, even if Gore won a close recount against W, the legisalature would have been perfectly within its powers to determine W was the real winner. Or assuming an elector determined Trump was a threat to the republic, his/her duty would actually have been to vote AGAINST Trump, even if Trump won a maj in the state.

Your complaint is that somehow the constitution says the state legislators cannot agree to appoint electors who will vote for the national pop vote winner. There's nothing in the const to prevent that. You also complain that states cannot agree among themselves how to appoint electors, but again the const just doesn't address that. In fact, I think the const encourages legislators to use their office to control winners of elections, and the const absolutely gives voters the power to determine who is in their legislatures.

Exactly how will they determine the national popular vote winner, since one of the purposes of the electoral college was not to have to even do that? The federal government (i.e. Congress) has no authority under the Constitution to do anything but accept the electoral votes. How will colorado or any other state determine the national popular vote winner if it is never officially talied?

'where do you get the notion that the national popular vote wasn't even to be counted? You do know we have vote totals for the early potus' elections, I assume.

So tell me, you fucking moron, who counts the popular vote for president in the United States federal government?

Not a damn person! The process of the election for President and Vice President is spelled out in the Constitution. I suggest you read it and find me the part where it discusses the popular vote total, who tabiltes it, and toward what end it is used.

 

[bendog]

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.Article II, Section 1, Clause 2

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.Article II, Section 1, Clause 2

Correct, the state shall appoint the electors, but it doesnt say that the state is allowed to say how the electoral votes are cast, that is for the states general election.

What colorado, and other states are trying to do is bypass the electoral college and force the electors of those states to vote against the voters wishes. It's essentially the legislature saying "we are going to delegate our electoral votes, not the citizens", basically removing the elector process.

When someone votes, they are not voting for a president, they are actually voting on a slate of electors which are chosen by the parties they represent. What these compact states are doing is removing the legally voted slate of electors, and placing their own in its place, or at least forcing them to vote against their wishes which really equates to election fraud when you think about it, because they are trying to alter the wishes of the people, and thus alter the election results. This is no different than someone stealing a ballot box and changing all the votes.

For all states entering this compact, they have completely sidestepped the whole reason for the electoral college, and run the risk of negating their electors. For these states, their electoral vote count should be reduced to zero.

Nothing prevents a state elector from voting for a candidate who did not win the popular vote in his state. In fact THAT is the whole point of the EC. To deny the choice of the maj of voters in that state. And the legislature may appoint electors for that purpose. For example, even if Gore won a close recount against W, the legisalature would have been perfectly within its powers to determine W was the real winner. Or assuming an elector determined Trump was a threat to the republic, his/her duty would actually have been to vote AGAINST Trump, even if Trump won a maj in the state.

Your complaint is that somehow the constitution says the state legislators cannot agree to appoint electors who will vote for the national pop vote winner. There's nothing in the const to prevent that. You also complain that states cannot agree among themselves how to appoint electors, but again the const just doesn't address that. In fact, I think the const encourages legislators to use their office to control winners of elections, and the const absolutely gives voters the power to determine who is in their legislatures.

Correct, it is possible for electors to go against the general election majority, it's rare, but it does happen.

What these state legislatures have decided is that, they dont care what the electors decide, they are going to determine what happens with their electoral votes. This means the electoral process, and the vote of the citizens of those states have been nullified, as well as the electors.

In essence, There is no need for an electoral college in those states, because the legislature has already determined where their votes will go.

Yup and tis is clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The State may not ignore the voters of the State.

So, constitutionally, the pro compact crowd may have some standing if they could find all electors who would be willing to not be "faithful electors" since the constitution really doesn't say anything beyond that the legislature get to pick the electors, however it does say that the electors must be the one to vote.

What I dont agree with is the legislature being able to arbitrarily say where the votes will go, especially before the electors have even been chosen. They havent even waited to see if they can find electors who would be willing to go along with their compact.

However, as I understand it, each side gets to choose electors, and when the citizens vote, they are not voting for a presidential candidate, they are voting for an elector. Whichever candidate wins the popular vote in that state, their parties electors get to cast votes.

I doubt the republican state legislators will pick electors who will go along with the compact, which means, in that instance, it would be a constitutional problem.

There's no actual compact with state A giving state B some legal standing to enforce something. Typically, states enter into compacts to do things like share (or divvy up) water rights from shared waterways. It's like a contract. If state A takes more than it's allotted share, state B can sue it in federal court.

IF Colorado, for example, decided ten years down the line to change it's law requiring legislators to appoint electors who'd support the nat pop vote winner, that would just be Colorado's biz, and another state would not have any way to force Colorado to not change it's law. All the states are doing in this case is making a "promise."

In your hypothetical you say "I doubt the gop state legislators will pick electors who will go along with the compact …." That's a very real possibility. But if THEIR OWN STATE LAW REQUIRES THEM TO PICK ELECTORS WHO WOULD GO ALONG, if they violated their own state law, their own state courts would have to enforce the law. HOWEVER, each legislature could attempt to change any law passed by a previous legislature … and signed into law by a governor.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Correct, the state shall appoint the electors, but it doesnt say that the state is allowed to say how the electoral votes are cast, that is for the states general election.

What colorado, and other states are trying to do is bypass the electoral college and force the electors of those states to vote against the voters wishes. It's essentially the legislature saying "we are going to delegate our electoral votes, not the citizens", basically removing the elector process.

When someone votes, they are not voting for a president, they are actually voting on a slate of electors which are chosen by the parties they represent. What these compact states are doing is removing the legally voted slate of electors, and placing their own in its place, or at least forcing them to vote against their wishes which really equates to election fraud when you think about it, because they are trying to alter the wishes of the people, and thus alter the election results. This is no different than someone stealing a ballot box and changing all the votes.

For all states entering this compact, they have completely sidestepped the whole reason for the electoral college, and run the risk of negating their electors. For these states, their electoral vote count should be reduced to zero.

Nothing prevents a state elector from voting for a candidate who did not win the popular vote in his state. In fact THAT is the whole point of the EC. To deny the choice of the maj of voters in that state. And the legislature may appoint electors for that purpose. For example, even if Gore won a close recount against W, the legisalature would have been perfectly within its powers to determine W was the real winner. Or assuming an elector determined Trump was a threat to the republic, his/her duty would actually have been to vote AGAINST Trump, even if Trump won a maj in the state.

Your complaint is that somehow the constitution says the state legislators cannot agree to appoint electors who will vote for the national pop vote winner. There's nothing in the const to prevent that. You also complain that states cannot agree among themselves how to appoint electors, but again the const just doesn't address that. In fact, I think the const encourages legislators to use their office to control winners of elections, and the const absolutely gives voters the power to determine who is in their legislatures.

Correct, it is possible for electors to go against the general election majority, it's rare, but it does happen.

What these state legislatures have decided is that, they dont care what the electors decide, they are going to determine what happens with their electoral votes. This means the electoral process, and the vote of the citizens of those states have been nullified, as well as the electors.

In essence, There is no need for an electoral college in those states, because the legislature has already determined where their votes will go.

Yup and tis is clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The State may not ignore the voters of the State.

So, constitutionally, the pro compact crowd may have some standing if they could find all electors who would be willing to not be "faithful electors" since the constitution really doesn't say anything beyond that the legislature get to pick the electors, however it does say that the electors must be the one to vote.

What I dont agree with is the legislature being able to arbitrarily say where the votes will go, especially before the electors have even been chosen. They havent even waited to see if they can find electors who would be willing to go along with their compact.

However, as I understand it, each side gets to choose electors, and when the citizens vote, they are not voting for a presidential candidate, they are voting for an elector. Whichever candidate wins the popular vote in that state, their parties electors get to cast votes.

I doubt the republican state legislators will pick electors who will go along with the compact, which means, in that instance, it would be a constitutional problem.

There's no actual compact with state A giving state B some legal standing to enforce something. Typically, states enter into compacts to do things like share (or divvy up) water rights from shared waterways. It's like a contract. If state A takes more than it's allotted share, state B can sue it in federal court.

IF Colorado, for example, decided ten years down the line to change it's law requiring legislators to appoint electors who'd support the nat pop vote winner, that would just be Colorado's biz, and another state would not have any way to force Colorado to not change it's law. All the states are doing in this case is making a "promise."

In your hypothetical you say "I doubt the gop state legislators will pick electors who will go along with the compact …." That's a very real possibility. But if THEIR OWN STATE LAW REQUIRES THEM TO PICK ELECTORS WHO WOULD GO ALONG, if they violated their own state law, their own state courts would have to enforce the law. HOWEVER, each legislature could attempt to change any law passed by a previous legislature … and signed into law by a governor.

You really are thick in the head! The title says "compact" the states are entering into which is a violation of the Constitution.

You still haven't answered my question, dumbass! Who counts the national popular vote in the federal government?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Correct, the state shall appoint the electors, but it doesnt say that the state is allowed to say how the electoral votes are cast, that is for the states general election.

What colorado, and other states are trying to do is bypass the electoral college and force the electors of those states to vote against the voters wishes. It's essentially the legislature saying "we are going to delegate our electoral votes, not the citizens", basically removing the elector process.

When someone votes, they are not voting for a president, they are actually voting on a slate of electors which are chosen by the parties they represent. What these compact states are doing is removing the legally voted slate of electors, and placing their own in its place, or at least forcing them to vote against their wishes which really equates to election fraud when you think about it, because they are trying to alter the wishes of the people, and thus alter the election results. This is no different than someone stealing a ballot box and changing all the votes.

For all states entering this compact, they have completely sidestepped the whole reason for the electoral college, and run the risk of negating their electors. For these states, their electoral vote count should be reduced to zero.

Nothing prevents a state elector from voting for a candidate who did not win the popular vote in his state. In fact THAT is the whole point of the EC. To deny the choice of the maj of voters in that state. And the legislature may appoint electors for that purpose. For example, even if Gore won a close recount against W, the legisalature would have been perfectly within its powers to determine W was the real winner. Or assuming an elector determined Trump was a threat to the republic, his/her duty would actually have been to vote AGAINST Trump, even if Trump won a maj in the state.

Your complaint is that somehow the constitution says the state legislators cannot agree to appoint electors who will vote for the national pop vote winner. There's nothing in the const to prevent that. You also complain that states cannot agree among themselves how to appoint electors, but again the const just doesn't address that. In fact, I think the const encourages legislators to use their office to control winners of elections, and the const absolutely gives voters the power to determine who is in their legislatures.

Correct, it is possible for electors to go against the general election majority, it's rare, but it does happen.

What these state legislatures have decided is that, they dont care what the electors decide, they are going to determine what happens with their electoral votes. This means the electoral process, and the vote of the citizens of those states have been nullified, as well as the electors.

In essence, There is no need for an electoral college in those states, because the legislature has already determined where their votes will go.

Yup and tis is clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The State may not ignore the voters of the State.

So, constitutionally, the pro compact crowd may have some standing if they could find all electors who would be willing to not be "faithful electors" since the constitution really doesn't say anything beyond that the legislature get to pick the electors, however it does say that the electors must be the one to vote.

What I dont agree with is the legislature being able to arbitrarily say where the votes will go, especially before the electors have even been chosen. They havent even waited to see if they can find electors who would be willing to go along with their compact.

However, as I understand it, each side gets to choose electors, and when the citizens vote, they are not voting for a presidential candidate, they are voting for an elector. Whichever candidate wins the popular vote in that state, their parties electors get to cast votes.

I doubt the republican state legislators will pick electors who will go along with the compact, which means, in that instance, it would be a constitutional problem.

There's no actual compact with state A giving state B some legal standing to enforce something. Typically, states enter into compacts to do things like share (or divvy up) water rights from shared waterways. It's like a contract. If state A takes more than it's allotted share, state B can sue it in federal court.

IF Colorado, for example, decided ten years down the line to change it's law requiring legislators to appoint electors who'd support the nat pop vote winner, that would just be Colorado's biz, and another state would not have any way to force Colorado to not change it's law. All the states are doing in this case is making a "promise."

In your hypothetical you say "I doubt the gop state legislators will pick electors who will go along with the compact …." That's a very real possibility. But if THEIR OWN STATE LAW REQUIRES THEM TO PICK ELECTORS WHO WOULD GO ALONG, if they violated their own state law, their own state courts would have to enforce the law. HOWEVER, each legislature could attempt to change any law passed by a previous legislature … and signed into law by a governor.

If colorado passed a law that all electors must give their votes to the national winner, it still would be a difficult situation, as each party gets to pick their own electors. Let's say the repubs dont want to pick those types of electors, are you saying that a law can be passed to force them to do so?

What you are advocating is election fraud, it really is. You are saying that if the citizens vote for gop, the legislature can say "no, your vote is going for the other candidate".

This is being enacted because, from what I hear, democrats generally win the popular vote. Correct me if I'm wrong. If that being the case, do you feel its right for a state to tell its citizens that they will always vote democrat? Do you think this compact would have been enacted if it was the Republicans who always won the pop vote?

 

[BULLDOG]

Nothing prevents a state elector from voting for a candidate who did not win the popular vote in his state. In fact THAT is the whole point of the EC. To deny the choice of the maj of voters in that state. And the legislature may appoint electors for that purpose. For example, even if Gore won a close recount against W, the legisalature would have been perfectly within its powers to determine W was the real winner. Or assuming an elector determined Trump was a threat to the republic, his/her duty would actually have been to vote AGAINST Trump, even if Trump won a maj in the state.

Your complaint is that somehow the constitution says the state legislators cannot agree to appoint electors who will vote for the national pop vote winner. There's nothing in the const to prevent that. You also complain that states cannot agree among themselves how to appoint electors, but again the const just doesn't address that. In fact, I think the const encourages legislators to use their office to control winners of elections, and the const absolutely gives voters the power to determine who is in their legislatures.

Correct, it is possible for electors to go against the general election majority, it's rare, but it does happen.

What these state legislatures have decided is that, they dont care what the electors decide, they are going to determine what happens with their electoral votes. This means the electoral process, and the vote of the citizens of those states have been nullified, as well as the electors.

In essence, There is no need for an electoral college in those states, because the legislature has already determined where their votes will go.

Yup and tis is clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The State may not ignore the voters of the State.

So, constitutionally, the pro compact crowd may have some standing if they could find all electors who would be willing to not be "faithful electors" since the constitution really doesn't say anything beyond that the legislature get to pick the electors, however it does say that the electors must be the one to vote.

What I dont agree with is the legislature being able to arbitrarily say where the votes will go, especially before the electors have even been chosen. They havent even waited to see if they can find electors who would be willing to go along with their compact.

However, as I understand it, each side gets to choose electors, and when the citizens vote, they are not voting for a presidential candidate, they are voting for an elector. Whichever candidate wins the popular vote in that state, their parties electors get to cast votes.

I doubt the republican state legislators will pick electors who will go along with the compact, which means, in that instance, it would be a constitutional problem.

There's no actual compact with state A giving state B some legal standing to enforce something. Typically, states enter into compacts to do things like share (or divvy up) water rights from shared waterways. It's like a contract. If state A takes more than it's allotted share, state B can sue it in federal court.

IF Colorado, for example, decided ten years down the line to change it's law requiring legislators to appoint electors who'd support the nat pop vote winner, that would just be Colorado's biz, and another state would not have any way to force Colorado to not change it's law. All the states are doing in this case is making a "promise."

In your hypothetical you say "I doubt the gop state legislators will pick electors who will go along with the compact …." That's a very real possibility. But if THEIR OWN STATE LAW REQUIRES THEM TO PICK ELECTORS WHO WOULD GO ALONG, if they violated their own state law, their own state courts would have to enforce the law. HOWEVER, each legislature could attempt to change any law passed by a previous legislature … and signed into law by a governor.

If colorado passed a law that all electors must give their votes to the national winner, it still would be a difficult situation, as each party gets to pick their own electors. Let's say the repubs dont want to pick those types of electors, are you saying that a law can be passed to force them to do so?

What you are advocating is election fraud, it really is. You are saying that if the citizens vote for gop, the legislature can say "no, your vote is going for the other candidate".

This is being enacted because, from what I hear, democrats generally win the popular vote. Correct me if I'm wrong. If that being the case, do you feel its right for a state to tell its citizens that they will always vote democrat? Do you think this compact would have been enacted if it was the Republicans who always won the pop vote?

Not sure it works that way. To my understanding, the way it is now, electors are free to vote how ever they want, regardless of the vote count.

 

[bendog]

Nothing prevents a state elector from voting for a candidate who did not win the popular vote in his state. In fact THAT is the whole point of the EC. To deny the choice of the maj of voters in that state. And the legislature may appoint electors for that purpose. For example, even if Gore won a close recount against W, the legisalature would have been perfectly within its powers to determine W was the real winner. Or assuming an elector determined Trump was a threat to the republic, his/her duty would actually have been to vote AGAINST Trump, even if Trump won a maj in the state.

Your complaint is that somehow the constitution says the state legislators cannot agree to appoint electors who will vote for the national pop vote winner. There's nothing in the const to prevent that. You also complain that states cannot agree among themselves how to appoint electors, but again the const just doesn't address that. In fact, I think the const encourages legislators to use their office to control winners of elections, and the const absolutely gives voters the power to determine who is in their legislatures.

Correct, it is possible for electors to go against the general election majority, it's rare, but it does happen.

What these state legislatures have decided is that, they dont care what the electors decide, they are going to determine what happens with their electoral votes. This means the electoral process, and the vote of the citizens of those states have been nullified, as well as the electors.

In essence, There is no need for an electoral college in those states, because the legislature has already determined where their votes will go.

Yup and tis is clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The State may not ignore the voters of the State.

So, constitutionally, the pro compact crowd may have some standing if they could find all electors who would be willing to not be "faithful electors" since the constitution really doesn't say anything beyond that the legislature get to pick the electors, however it does say that the electors must be the one to vote.

What I dont agree with is the legislature being able to arbitrarily say where the votes will go, especially before the electors have even been chosen. They havent even waited to see if they can find electors who would be willing to go along with their compact.

However, as I understand it, each side gets to choose electors, and when the citizens vote, they are not voting for a presidential candidate, they are voting for an elector. Whichever candidate wins the popular vote in that state, their parties electors get to cast votes.

I doubt the republican state legislators will pick electors who will go along with the compact, which means, in that instance, it would be a constitutional problem.

There's no actual compact with state A giving state B some legal standing to enforce something. Typically, states enter into compacts to do things like share (or divvy up) water rights from shared waterways. It's like a contract. If state A takes more than it's allotted share, state B can sue it in federal court.

IF Colorado, for example, decided ten years down the line to change it's law requiring legislators to appoint electors who'd support the nat pop vote winner, that would just be Colorado's biz, and another state would not have any way to force Colorado to not change it's law. All the states are doing in this case is making a "promise."

In your hypothetical you say "I doubt the gop state legislators will pick electors who will go along with the compact …." That's a very real possibility. But if THEIR OWN STATE LAW REQUIRES THEM TO PICK ELECTORS WHO WOULD GO ALONG, if they violated their own state law, their own state courts would have to enforce the law. HOWEVER, each legislature could attempt to change any law passed by a previous legislature … and signed into law by a governor.

If colorado passed a law that all electors must give their votes to the national winner, it still would be a difficult situation, as each party gets to pick their own electors. Let's say the repubs dont want to pick those types of electors, are you saying that a law can be passed to force them to do so?

What you are advocating is election fraud, it really is. You are saying that if the citizens vote for gop, the legislature can say "no, your vote is going for the other candidate".

This is being enacted because, from what I hear, democrats generally win the popular vote. Correct me if I'm wrong. If that being the case, do you feel its right for a state to tell its citizens that they will always vote democrat? Do you think this compact would have been enacted if it was the Republicans who always won the pop vote?

I'm saying that if any state passes its own law saying electors must vote for the natl popular vote winner …. that's a law that must be followed by both parties in the state, and the state's courts must enforce it, until the law is changed.

 

[bendog]

Correct, it is possible for electors to go against the general election majority, it's rare, but it does happen.

What these state legislatures have decided is that, they dont care what the electors decide, they are going to determine what happens with their electoral votes. This means the electoral process, and the vote of the citizens of those states have been nullified, as well as the electors.

In essence, There is no need for an electoral college in those states, because the legislature has already determined where their votes will go.

Yup and tis is clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The State may not ignore the voters of the State.

So, constitutionally, the pro compact crowd may have some standing if they could find all electors who would be willing to not be "faithful electors" since the constitution really doesn't say anything beyond that the legislature get to pick the electors, however it does say that the electors must be the one to vote.

What I dont agree with is the legislature being able to arbitrarily say where the votes will go, especially before the electors have even been chosen. They havent even waited to see if they can find electors who would be willing to go along with their compact.

However, as I understand it, each side gets to choose electors, and when the citizens vote, they are not voting for a presidential candidate, they are voting for an elector. Whichever candidate wins the popular vote in that state, their parties electors get to cast votes.

I doubt the republican state legislators will pick electors who will go along with the compact, which means, in that instance, it would be a constitutional problem.

There's no actual compact with state A giving state B some legal standing to enforce something. Typically, states enter into compacts to do things like share (or divvy up) water rights from shared waterways. It's like a contract. If state A takes more than it's allotted share, state B can sue it in federal court.

IF Colorado, for example, decided ten years down the line to change it's law requiring legislators to appoint electors who'd support the nat pop vote winner, that would just be Colorado's biz, and another state would not have any way to force Colorado to not change it's law. All the states are doing in this case is making a "promise."

In your hypothetical you say "I doubt the gop state legislators will pick electors who will go along with the compact …." That's a very real possibility. But if THEIR OWN STATE LAW REQUIRES THEM TO PICK ELECTORS WHO WOULD GO ALONG, if they violated their own state law, their own state courts would have to enforce the law. HOWEVER, each legislature could attempt to change any law passed by a previous legislature … and signed into law by a governor.

If colorado passed a law that all electors must give their votes to the national winner, it still would be a difficult situation, as each party gets to pick their own electors. Let's say the repubs dont want to pick those types of electors, are you saying that a law can be passed to force them to do so?

What you are advocating is election fraud, it really is. You are saying that if the citizens vote for gop, the legislature can say "no, your vote is going for the other candidate".

This is being enacted because, from what I hear, democrats generally win the popular vote. Correct me if I'm wrong. If that being the case, do you feel its right for a state to tell its citizens that they will always vote democrat? Do you think this compact would have been enacted if it was the Republicans who always won the pop vote?

Not sure it works that way. To my understanding, the way it is now, electors are free to vote how ever they want, regardless of the vote count.

Well, like in Fla in 2000, the gop legislature could have picked electors whom they felt certain would have voted for W. That is if the Scotus had applied federalism and left a state matter to a state.

The electors can be about anyone not a federal official. A state legislator. A former official. I suppose it's always possible an elector would "lie" about pledging to vote for the popular national vote winner, and then vote for someone else. But I think that would make him/her sort of notorious in their own state.

 

[bendog]

Nothing prevents a state elector from voting for a candidate who did not win the popular vote in his state. In fact THAT is the whole point of the EC. To deny the choice of the maj of voters in that state. And the legislature may appoint electors for that purpose. For example, even if Gore won a close recount against W, the legisalature would have been perfectly within its powers to determine W was the real winner. Or assuming an elector determined Trump was a threat to the republic, his/her duty would actually have been to vote AGAINST Trump, even if Trump won a maj in the state.

Your complaint is that somehow the constitution says the state legislators cannot agree to appoint electors who will vote for the national pop vote winner. There's nothing in the const to prevent that. You also complain that states cannot agree among themselves how to appoint electors, but again the const just doesn't address that. In fact, I think the const encourages legislators to use their office to control winners of elections, and the const absolutely gives voters the power to determine who is in their legislatures.

Correct, it is possible for electors to go against the general election majority, it's rare, but it does happen.

What these state legislatures have decided is that, they dont care what the electors decide, they are going to determine what happens with their electoral votes. This means the electoral process, and the vote of the citizens of those states have been nullified, as well as the electors.

In essence, There is no need for an electoral college in those states, because the legislature has already determined where their votes will go.

Yup and tis is clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The State may not ignore the voters of the State.

So, constitutionally, the pro compact crowd may have some standing if they could find all electors who would be willing to not be "faithful electors" since the constitution really doesn't say anything beyond that the legislature get to pick the electors, however it does say that the electors must be the one to vote.

What I dont agree with is the legislature being able to arbitrarily say where the votes will go, especially before the electors have even been chosen. They havent even waited to see if they can find electors who would be willing to go along with their compact.

However, as I understand it, each side gets to choose electors, and when the citizens vote, they are not voting for a presidential candidate, they are voting for an elector. Whichever candidate wins the popular vote in that state, their parties electors get to cast votes.

I doubt the republican state legislators will pick electors who will go along with the compact, which means, in that instance, it would be a constitutional problem.

There's no actual compact with state A giving state B some legal standing to enforce something. Typically, states enter into compacts to do things like share (or divvy up) water rights from shared waterways. It's like a contract. If state A takes more than it's allotted share, state B can sue it in federal court.

IF Colorado, for example, decided ten years down the line to change it's law requiring legislators to appoint electors who'd support the nat pop vote winner, that would just be Colorado's biz, and another state would not have any way to force Colorado to not change it's law. All the states are doing in this case is making a "promise."

In your hypothetical you say "I doubt the gop state legislators will pick electors who will go along with the compact …." That's a very real possibility. But if THEIR OWN STATE LAW REQUIRES THEM TO PICK ELECTORS WHO WOULD GO ALONG, if they violated their own state law, their own state courts would have to enforce the law. HOWEVER, each legislature could attempt to change any law passed by a previous legislature … and signed into law by a governor.

You really are thick in the head! The title says "compact" the states are entering into which is a violation of the Constitution.

You still haven't answered my question, dumbass! Who counts the national popular vote in the federal government?

I know you think google is your enemy, fake Rock, but knowledge really isn't.