Colorado Rigging Next Election

[BULLDOG]

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.

There is even a legal term for it. Faithless Elector.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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?

We already had a all for one on the books before this hair brained law that the Voters did not approve. We have until late 2020 to correct this and put it back to the all for one that seems to be more fair. The All for one has already been contested in court and stands so that's not the issue. I have no idea what hair brained politico came up with the National. But it needs to be thrown out and those that crammed it in needs to be spanked.

 

[MaryL]

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​

Dems are our new supreme overlords. Last time I was at a Denver DMV, um. three non English speaking males go into a booth with their cell phones out for the drivers test. "One person to a booth no cell phones". Clearly posted. And the last X many times I was juror ( Denver county), every freeking time it was Spanish speaking only defendants AND plaintiffs. And in each case, they were here over 20 years. Denver is a sanctuary city. And to add insult to injury, Denver citizens were never ever asked if we wanted to give sanctuary to illegals from federal law. Nope, instead, some star chamber mysterious group determined that their will superseded the entire democratic process. So color me skeptical on the Democrat liberals faux outrage over treatment of illegal aliens, or even the Russian collusion thing. It wouldn't surprise me one bit given the current climate, the level of shenanigans and manipulation these democrats would sink too, to interfere with the democratic election process. Nope.

 

[bodecea]

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>

You funny! Thinking fat donnie could have ever won the popular vote...

 

[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​

Dems are our new supreme overlords. Last time I was at a Denver DMV, um. three non English speaking males go into a booth with their cell phones out for the drivers test. "One person to a booth no cell phones". Clearly posted. And the last X many times I was juror ( Denver county), every freeking time it was Spanish speaking only defendants AND plaintiffs. And in each case, they were here over 20 years. Denver is a sanctuary city. And to add insult to injury, Denver citizens were never ever asked if we wanted to give sanctuary to illegals from federal law. Nope, instead, some star chamber mysterious group determined that their will superseded the entire democratic process. So color me skeptical on the Democrat liberals faux outrage over treatment of illegal aliens, or even the Russian collusion thing. It wouldn't surprise me one bit given the current climate, the level of shenanigans and manipulation these democrats would sink too, to interfere with the democratic election process. Nope.

Democrats want to make elections unnecessary. They don't like giving you a choice......in anything.

 

[MaryL]

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​

Dems are our new supreme overlords. Last time I was at a Denver DMV, um. three non English speaking males go into a booth with their cell phones out for the drivers test. "One person to a booth no cell phones". Clearly posted. And the last X many times I was juror ( Denver county), every freeking time it was Spanish speaking only defendants AND plaintiffs. And in each case, they were here over 20 years. Denver is a sanctuary city. And to add insult to injury, Denver citizens were never ever asked if we wanted to give sanctuary to illegals from federal law. Nope, instead, some star chamber mysterious group determined that their will superseded the entire democratic process. So color me skeptical on the Democrat liberals faux outrage over treatment of illegal aliens, or even the Russian collusion thing. It wouldn't surprise me one bit given the current climate, the level of shenanigans and manipulation these democrats would sink too, to interfere with the democratic election process. Nope.

Democrats want to make elections unnecessary. They don't like giving you a choice......in anything.

I used to be a democrat. A LIBERAL. Times and people change. There is this #walkaway thing going on here. We, the people are rebelling against extremism. In whatever form its embodied.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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.

They can vote against the majority, that is true. It does happen, rarely. Some states impose penalties for doing so.

Each party does, however, pick their own electors. I don't believe a law can force them to pick a specific type of elector that will vote a pre determined way.

What this compact would do is force the gop to pick democrat electors, and I don't think that would be allowed.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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.

But, along those lines, that law would be forcing the gop to pick what amounts to essentially democratic leaning electors, as the gop would probably not want national pop vote electors. They would want state popular vote electors.

Again, if the national pop vote usually always goes democrat, you would be forcing gop electors, and all the citizens of the state to always vote democrat, even if they are not democrat themselves.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

They can vote against the majority, that is true. It does happen, rarely. Some states impose penalties for doing so.

Each party does, however, pick their own electors. I don't believe a law can force them to pick a specific type of elector that will vote a pre determined way.

What this compact would do is force the gop to pick democrat electors, and I don't think that would be allowed.

Only if you assume the Democratic candidate will get the most votes every time. That would be a pretty safe bet, but far from guaranteed.

 

[MaryL]

I am a native Coloradan. A Denverite. Yep . Sanctuary for illegal aliens wasn't on the democratic platter. All the stuff about government being transparent? All the liberal stuff about humanitarianism comes off more as a cynical ploy to manipulate and legitimize illegal aliens. Meanwhile back at the ranch: We have all these poor wretched yearning to be free that just happen to be like third generation Americans. Living in tents and don't have jobs being minimized as trash because they are white and poor. Nobody is giving them unilateral sanctuary above laws , funny how that works.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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​

Dems are our new supreme overlords. Last time I was at a Denver DMV, um. three non English speaking males go into a booth with their cell phones out for the drivers test. "One person to a booth no cell phones". Clearly posted. And the last X many times I was juror ( Denver county), every freeking time it was Spanish speaking only defendants AND plaintiffs. And in each case, they were here over 20 years. Denver is a sanctuary city. And to add insult to injury, Denver citizens were never ever asked if we wanted to give sanctuary to illegals from federal law. Nope, instead, some star chamber mysterious group determined that their will superseded the entire democratic process. So color me skeptical on the Democrat liberals faux outrage over treatment of illegal aliens, or even the Russian collusion thing. It wouldn't surprise me one bit given the current climate, the level of shenanigans and manipulation these democrats would sink too, to interfere with the democratic election process. Nope.

Once again you just gave a free ride to the Republicans. Shame on you.

 

[MaryL]

So right now I live less than a thousand feet from a homeless camp. I saw this old white woman have a breakdown. And it nearly broke my heart. Right next door are...illegal aliens that pretty much fucked over these same American poor that nobody got to vote in or allow, but NOW Mexicans illegal aliens are concerned about the homeless Americans ? They dont like living next to poor white homeless Americans? All those poor poor Americans living in squalor, the poor poor Mexicans here with out our consent, they don't understand irony of all this.

 

[MaryL]

Here in Colorado as a native...when was say, err, sanctuary city status for Hispanic illegal aliens ever put on a popular ballot? When did our Politicians dare to actually ask US what we want? This is still a Democratic Republic. It isn't a democratic dictatorship. Ask US what we want. don't tell us what you think we want without asking us after the fact. I can dare say, Nobody wanted sanctuary for illegals. But rich wealthy contractors or Hispanic activists that government confuse with the actual electors.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So right now I live less than a thousand feet from a homeless camp. I saw this old white woman have a breakdown. And it nearly broke my heart. Right next door are...illegal aliens that pretty much fucked over these same American poor that nobody got to vote in or allow, but NOW Mexicans illegal aliens are concerned about the homeless Americans ? They dont like living next to poor white homeless Americans? All those poor poor Americans living in squalor, the poor poor Mexicans here with out our consent, they don't understand irony of all this.

Now you are showing some compassion. I knew you had it in you. Denver is about second to only LA for homeless or maybe SF. I am in Grand Junction and we get your overflow. And it doesn't matter the status, if either group is living in squalor then it's just plain wrong. I have a feeling if you fix the homeless problem you will also fix the homeless illegal problem at the same time. Hunger doesn't have a party affiliation.

Here in Grand Junction, we get a different class of homeless than you get there. Yes, we both have the ones that are truly homeless. But true homeless from Denver won't travel or can't travel the 240 miles to Grand Junction. Those true homeless here are home grown. What we get from Denver are the Professional Homeless. They won't work. Ask them for a SS card and they claim they never had one or it was stolen and they can't get a new one. Ask them for an ID and same thing. The back door jobs of the illegals will never be in jeapordy by the professional homeless. What I don't understand, it takes more effort to be a professional homeless than it does to work a retail job.

The Homeless I feel most for are the ones that are homeless and have jobs. When the cost of living exceeds the takehome pay then there is a real problem with the community. I happen to know we have them here, you have them in Denver just like every major city in the US has them as well. And not a damned thing is done about it. And that is what happens when you let Capitalism go completely unchecked. Sooner or later, it's going to say, "Screw everyone else, I got mine".

Checks and balances, checks and balances.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Here in Colorado as a native...when was say, err, sanctuary city status for Hispanic illegal aliens ever put on a popular ballot? When did our Politicians dare to actually ask US what we want? This is still a Democratic Republic. It isn't a democratic dictatorship. Ask US what we want. don't tell us what you think we want without asking us after the fact. I can dare say, Nobody wanted sanctuary for illegals. But rich wealthy contractors or Hispanic activists that government confuse with the actual electors.

First of all, No Free Rides anymore. You want it one way, the Republican way. Newsflash: Right now, there aren't a hell of a lot of real Republicans not hiding under a rug somewhere. I do hope you understand when I say, "No more Free Rides".

 

[MaryL]

I am an ex democrat. Specifically because of this issue.Wow, we the democrats want to help poor poor Mexicans get jobs and receive social welfare junk and stuff, but not at the expense of the real American poor. And without the actual electorate kind democratic input . Nope, instead, we have a few elected officials do the overreach "its a democratic republic we know better than you two-step" Yeah, right. No, they don't and nice bid to subvert the entire democratic process, dems.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Different states have different laws regarding faithless electors. Your understanding is wrong, as per usual.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

How do they determine the national vote since no one in the federal government calculates it?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

That is because they would have been following the state law. Your example does not apply.