Colorado Joins 11 States Agreeing to Shift to Popular Vote System

They aren't only part of the vote in my State.

Are we about to get into a philosophical debate about the reality of numerical sets, or are you going to stop pretending that you're making a good point here?

Boy, it's going to be awkward when you can't find any evidence of me supporting a national federal election.

You're the only one talking about a federally-run national vote. These states are talking about state-run popular votes, that then get tallied together.

I know. Such a shame that we broke from the original vision.

It probably will. But your objections here, all of them, are nonsensical.

 

The answer is very, very obvious: Because they want the EC vote and the popular vote to always choose the same candidate.

Any more softballs?

 

How is it, constitutionally, possible for a state to do anything other than choose its electors?

 

Nobody wants open borders. Obama deported countless illegal immigrants. Democrats have no problem with border security and have no problem budgeting funds for additional border guards, new equipment, more judges to handle the influx of people seeking asylum and additional common sense remedies . Dems take issue with things like border guards blocking asylum seekers from entering at approved points of entry, separating families to punish them for seeking asylum, locking babies and children in wire cages, banning an entire group of people from entering our country based on their choice of religion (Trumps bigoted Muslim ban). The "open borders" b.s. is not coming from Democrats, it's just another Trump lie.

 

If you're talking about Presidential elections, nothing.

Man, let's keep these softballs coming, boys.

 

Well that's fine an dandy until one or more states reneges on the compact. Again why would any responsible state legislature commit the votes of the citizens of it's states to an enforceable agreement with other states?

 

Correct. In a presidential election, a state can do no more than choose electors for the president.

The OP was about the electoral college, no?

 

And why would any chosen elector feel bound by anything other than her conscience to cast her vote for the presidential candidate of her choice?

 

Yes, and so am I. For some reason Bluesguy is talking about federally-administered national elections. That, obviously, would require a Constitutional Amendment. I don't really know why he's talking about it in response to me.

 

Well some states fine people. Otherwise, the only thing holding electors to be "faithful" to their states' voters is social opprobrium. I suspect that if faithful electors ever actually swayed an election the United States would face a significant legitimacy crisis.

 

They're electors. They're supposed to elect.

 

You want me to repeat the obvious answer, or do you agree with it?

 

Okay. Do you disagree with something I said, or are we supposed to state obvious facts to each other?

 

The fact that he is dead does not make Trumps one-way battle with John McCain any less disgusting, not to mention disturbing. Anyone who cannot see the unbalanced nature of Trumps behavior in this has serious issues recognizing the difference between right and wrong.
The man is obviously unraveling. How else can one explain why he would continue making an ass out of himself fighting with a dead man whose reputation as a much beloved and respected patriot he (Trump) so clearly covets.

 

Not you in particular. But you said that states could fine electors for electing. That seems kind of stupid. Why would a state choose an elector and then fine her for electing.

 

Indeed, and they've done it.

Oh good, another softball.

In the decades following Ratification, as the Jefferson-led Democrat-Republicans took the reins of almost every state legislature and dominated national politics, most States decided that their votes for President should be chosen democratically. Over the next few centuries this was the dominant belief and practice of American elections. Most Americans, like it or not, don't like the idea that an Elector can nullify their votes, and sometimes support legislation to punish any Elector who does so.

 

But the constitution requires that the states choose electors. Electors elect. That's what electors means.

 

Okay. That's great. Let's keep stating obvious facts to each other:

Since the early 19th Century American Presidential elections have been decided by a system in which states run votes in which the entirely of their Electorate vote along the lines decided by the majority of votes in their states.

 

Sorry. I didn't realize you were a KGB Intel chief.

 

That is totally ridiculous. I don't have to agree with a person's politics in order to respect, admire and appreciate his service and devotion to our country. John McCain was incredibly brave, honest and he had integrity - qualities not shared by the current POTUS, btw.

 

Okay, so the law says:

"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."

So you're saying that there are states that use a popular vote as their mechanism to appoint their electors. And then after these electors have been appointed, their job (per the law) is to elect (i.e. choose) the president. Which they do.

 

Strange if you disagree with me, it strikes me as a fairly obvious point.

A good amount of Russian propaganda to right-wingers was to harp on the supposed crookedness of our elections, in which the elite's preferred candidate wins despite the wish of the people.

The purpose is obvious: To create a situation in which American right-wingers, already inclined to anti-Federal sentiment, would see themselves as living under an illegitimate President.

 

Okay, we're in agreement so far. Go on.

 

That's it. The job of the appointed electors is to choose the president.

 

Well look at that, we never actually disagreed.