Colorado Joins 11 States Agreeing to Shift to Popular Vote System

Then you want anarchy and violence in the streets

because if you dont want to follow the rules the system falls apart

 

And? So what?

 

Well they are usually party officials and bound under state law at least through the first ballot. Your point being what?

 

And that is statistical and election folly and does not represent a true national popular vote.

 

I vote for a slate of electors in my state.

 

My point is that the constitutional job of an elector is to elect (i.e. choose) the president. Their choice can't be restricted.

 

I can imagine the uproar in California or New Jersey or Colorado if Sanders wins their state BY FAR but Trump wins a tally of all the votes in all the states and because of what there state legislators have done their state HAS to vote for Trump.

 

Trump received just over 46% of all votes cast. Hillary got just under 49%.

I have no idea where this 1/3 figure is coming from.

 

But states do at least through the first ballot. In my state they are bound.

 

If they are bound then they're not electors. States are supposed to appoint electors.

 

Are you sure you didn mean to say Democrat party?

 

29 states bind the electors to the candidate to which they pledged and party they ran under.

 

To go to a true popular vote which your system does not provide nor binds any state to one. What the Democrats are calling for.

From NPR today and the expert they went to

"The pact raises questions of its own for democracy: It creates a situation in which voters in, for example, Colorado, may cast most of their votes for the Democrat in a presidential race — but the state might wind up giving its electors to the Republican depending on the national outcome.

That might invite legal challenges from candidates or voters' groups if it took place.

The cases for and against

Supporters of a national popular vote argue something must be done; the Electoral College disproportionately inflates the influence of rural areas while undervaluing the votes of cities. That, critics say, means devaluing the votes of many non-white voters too.

"It really does over-represent some sparsely populated states, and it provides some skew and bias to our system that I just don't think is healthy anymore," said Paul Gronke, a political scientist at Reed College.

Gronke notes, however, that there would be major administrative challenges if the U.S. ever got to the point of switching to a national popular vote.

Moderate Democrats Under Pressure As Party's Left Grabs Attention
POLITICS
Moderate Democrats Under Pressure As Party's Left Grabs Attention
Would the federal government get into the business of administering the elections, or leave that up to state and local officials, as it does today? Could Washington administer a national recount in the event of a close result?

"How would that work?" Gronke asks. "You look at the Florida situation we had in 2000 — that already took a lot of time and effort, but imagine if that was done across the country. It's just not clear how you could do that."

Gary Gregg, who leads the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville, says that if today's system over-privileges rural states, a national popular vote would be just as unfair in the opposite direction.

Trump made a similar argument earlier this week, warning that "smaller states & then entire Midwest would end up losing all power."
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/22/7056...ge-would-be-more-complicated-than-it-may-seem

 

Then 29 states are failing to appoint electors.

 

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:​

So, I can see the compact being struck down, any elements that require 6 months notice to withdraw and so forth, essentially anything that encumbers the Legislature from carrying out this responsibility in any manner they see fit.

They are free to do this now, the compact does not grant them this power, they already have it. The main purpose of the compact, it would seem to me, is to explain to their own people why they may award Electors, in contravention of their constituents desires as expressed at the ballot box.

If they truly wanted to carry out the wishes of THEIR electorate, rather than the National Majority, they should award their electors proportionally as NE and ME do.

 

If this happened and 20 big liberal counties ran the US you would see mass succession attempts by many states.

 

Then you are acknowledging the possibility of Russian interference in the election..... FOR TRUMP.

Exactly. Trump respects authoritarians, dictators, totalitarians, thugs, and mob bosses. Do you really want someone like that running the country?

 

So Colorado is willing to become a state that no one needs to campaign in. The state abandons its right to influence leadership to help Colorado. Awesome.

 

Meuller didn't find any...you need a new hunting dog.

 

Sure he did. There were 13 Russians who were indicted for meddling - https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/...d-US-Election-Meddling-Mueller-474309733.html

Too much Hannity.

 

They do it in the manner the state legislature decides. Either way it is the state.

 

Have they been found guilty?

 

As we do in theirs but hopefully we do a better job of it since not a shred of evidence has been presented their meager efforts had any effect.

 

But they're not appointing electors if the people they appoint are forbidden from electing.

 

The purpose of the compact is to keep the states that agree to it and engage in it to stay in line. That is where they start running into the compact clause and these agreements could be struck down. And if the court says they cannot disfranchise the voters of their state and they do not have another law which says OK then the vote in our state only will used they could risk being without any electors.