Colorado joins National Popular Vote Compact

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,569
2,440
1,743
So Cal
#21
In other words, what you're trying to point out is that since you're so greatly conservative, you wouldn't think of supporting changing the process in which the American president is selected no matter what. After all, it's all in the Constitution. And it's totally irrelevant that women couldn't vote and many blacks were slaves back when the Constitution was written.
it's not just "the Constitution"... it's THE REPUBLIC.

Electoral College represents a Republic.

Eliminating the Electoral College represents a Democracy.

Democracy = bad

how many dang times do we have to tell you this stuff?

Honestly, it just not that hard to understand.
 

sc5mu93

WeaselMonkey
A/V Subscriber
Oct 18, 2006
9,016
7,698
1,743
Fairfield, CT
#24
LOL, Just wait until the Democrats start winning the Electoral College and lose the popular vote, you'll, no doubt, very much change your tune, considering how much all out hatred and resentment Republicans have against Democrats.

By the way, as bad as Bush II turned out and who knows about Trump until Nov. 2020 gets here and possibly beyond, the Electoral College conflicting with popular vote hasn't gone all that well.
What are you even talking about?

And no, I wouldn't change my tune. The EC is not broken. It doesn't need to be changed. The losers who got more individual votes need to focus their efforts on winning EC votes not individual votes.

It's like they didn't read the rule book, then complain when they lost because they didn't understand the rules. Then try to change the rules to their misunderstanding of them.

Now, you can can argue "winner take all" and gerrymandering have an undue effect on the EC, and I would probably agree with you.
 
Feb 25, 2008
3,854
2,005
1,743
#26
Oklahoma .....

On February 12, 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill (SB 906) by a 28–18 margin. The bill was sponsored by Senator Rob Johnson and Representative Don Armes.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state/ok

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/sites/default/files/ok-sb-906-2013-bill-johnson-armes.pdf

Rob Johnson (b. March 23, 1974) is a former Republican member of the Oklahoma State Senate, representing District 22 from 2010 to November 18, 2014. Johnson previously served as Assistant Majority Floor Leader. Johnson did not seek re-election in 2014.

Don Armes (born July 31, 1961) is a United States Republican politician from U.S. state of Oklahoma. Armes currently serves in the Oklahoma House of Representatives, representing state House District 63. He was first elected to the seat in 2002.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
7,226
3,571
743
49
#27
Where's our legal eagles? Is JD around anymore? Where's are ex New Yorker? Certainly, these are being challenged. I've read others are passing laws keeping Trump off the ballot. Aren't write ins acceptable anyway? Even growing up I've never seen such bad losers in backyard football.
States are responsible for how they elect their electors. This is completely Constitutional.
I understand that on a state-by-state basis that it's legal. but my question would be at the moment it really becomes obvious that it's multiple States combining together across state lines to partner against the electoral college, does it then become them against the federal law and that's something that the feds can step into and declare unconstitutional?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,569
2,440
1,743
So Cal
#29
Looking at that list of States that have passed this nonsense - it is apparent that they do not want any political campaigns taking place in their States. (compact members are Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington). Only Chicago and maybe Jersey or Boston have any real draw in that whole group.

I mean this sincerely, if all of those States are going to give you their votes simply by winning the Big City and Big States, then why would any candidate waste one second in some of those States supporting this nonsense.

The Candidates no longer have to go from town to town in States, and there are no more "swing States"... the Candidates simply spend all of their time and effort in NYC, LA, SF, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Miami, and a couple of the larger States like Ohio... and call it done.

The idiots that have passed this bills have given zero forethought to impact on campaigning and on rural voters.
 
Last edited:

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,569
2,440
1,743
So Cal
#32
Why not just write a state law that says we are putting all our EC votes for the democratic candidate? With a rider to reexamine after each election.
it's not really as simple as that, and the popular vote in this past election was much closer than the EC vote.

California, for example, has 55 EC votes, which is winner take all. So in the EC vote system, CA and NY and a few other huge blue states start out with a huge EC advantage.

Under popular vote, the numbers are much closer. In CA for example, Crooked Hillary got 62% and Trump got 32% - which is very different than the DEMS sweeping 100% of CA's 55 EC votes.

Nationally, Trump carried 30 States (popular vote), and ended with 55.7% of the EC votes, and with 46% of the popular vote (to Hillary's 48% popular vote)
 
Last edited:

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,569
2,440
1,743
So Cal
#33
The problem that I see with this would be if a State (say Colorado) voted and their popular vote went to the GOP (and assuming their people wanted their EC votes to go to the GOP), and then the State of CO goes and switches the will of the CO voters and assigns their votes to the DEMs (based on national popular vote).... then it would seem that the people of CO would have a basis to file a complaint or grievance. I think this is a fundamental flaw in this whole idea.

Second, "we" would be asking the people of our State to "trust" the results of other States, because how our votes get allocated now depends on the integrity of the other State's voting processes. The dangling chad fiasco in FL would not only affect the FL votes, but potentially the votes of 12 other States.

Given the disparity of the State elections and the known fraud that exists in so many States, I would seriously think that this would be a non-starter for any of these legislatures even considering a stupid idea like this.
 
Jul 25, 2018
1,310
366
163
48
Boulder, CO
#36
The problem that I see with this would be if a State (say Colorado) voted and their popular vote went to the GOP (and assuming their people wanted their EC votes to go to the GOP), and then the State of CO goes and switches the will of the CO voters and assigns their votes to the DEMs (based on national popular vote).... then it would seem that the people of CO would have a basis to file a complaint or grievance. I think this is a fundamental flaw in this whole idea.

Second, "we" would be asking the people of our State to "trust" the results of other States, because how our votes get allocated now depends on the integrity of the other State's voting processes. The dangling chad fiasco in FL would not only affect the FL votes, but potentially the votes of 12 other States.

Given the disparity of the State elections and the known fraud that exists in so many States, I would seriously think that this would be a non-starter for any of these legislatures even considering a stupid idea like this.
& you would be underestimating some state legislatures on this.

We're literally witnessing it in Colorado right now, & it's interesting, or disturbing, depending on how you look at it.

Multiple democratic issues were on the ballot in November, & roundly defeated. Ironically, the candidates that supported a lot of the measures were elected. To me, I think it's Colorado changing from a purple state to blue, & some of the confusion of what's cool to do & what makes someone feel good. How else do you explain rejecting the issue, but voting for the candidate that supported it?

So, on singular issues, the statewide vote rejected the ideas, but supported the candidate. This is why we have a Governor supporting the popular vote idea, & supporting an end-around on Oil & Gas reform bill (rejected by the states' voters).
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,569
2,440
1,743
So Cal
#38
& you would be underestimating some state legislatures on this.

We're literally witnessing it in Colorado right now, & it's interesting, or disturbing, depending on how you look at it.

Multiple democratic issues were on the ballot in November, & roundly defeated. Ironically, the candidates that supported a lot of the measures were elected. To me, I think it's Colorado changing from a purple state to blue, & some of the confusion of what's cool to do & what makes someone feel good. How else do you explain rejecting the issue, but voting for the candidate that supported it?

So, on singular issues, the statewide vote rejected the ideas, but supported the candidate. This is why we have a Governor supporting the popular vote idea, & supporting an end-around on Oil & Gas reform bill (rejected by the states' voters).
I agree, the right to vote should be based on education, as it started out (essentially).

If you don't have something vested in the outcome (i.e., you pay taxes, and you passed a civil service test) then you can vote. If you don't pay taxes, and take government money (even Pell grants) then you can't vote.

It's a simply solution.
 

bleedinorange

Federal Marshal
Jan 11, 2010
15,932
30,067
743
In Pokey's head
#40
This discussion reminds me of a time when Mike Leach was pounding most everyone he played running up scores to the stratosphere. His response to critics was classic; (paraphrased) It's not my job to tell my team not to score. The other teams just need to get better and stop us.