Colorado governor will sign bill aimed at bypassing Electoral College

The Hill ^ | February 25, 2019

[CodeToad]

If States can do this then other States can say no electors can go to Democrats.

[silverleaf]

What an idiot
He just gave Colorados votes to California

The Founders did not structure our nation to be a democracy
Dont believe the word is even used in the Constitution

A mob is a democracy

[george76]

Colorado Ping ( Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)

[colorado tanker]

He just gave Colorados votes to California

He was raised in California. The morons who turned the state over to him have no idea what they've done.

[jonascord]

"Now, that's worrisome. What were they thinking?"

The Indiana Pi Bill is the popular name for bill #246 of the 1897 sitting of the Indiana General Assembly, one of the most notorious attempts to establish mathematical truth by legislative fiat. The bill, written by amateur mathematician Edward J. Goodwin, does imply various incorrect values of π, such as 3.2

In 1971, Texas passed a resolution commending Albert DeSalvo for his efforts at population control.

Politicians are stupid, everywhere, all the time.

I have a solution, but no politicians like it.

[blueplum]

how cute. But a state cannot legislate any law that contravenes the US Constitution. And by creating the process of the Electoral College, the Constitution prohibits ‘popular vote’

[blueplum]

Slates of Electoral College electors are chosen by each political party prior to the election. Most are long-standing members of the party and over 98% vote party. AFTER the election, Article 2 comes into effect so the winning party slate become OO-fficial state electors. Electors generally are not free to do as they please - they either have to follow state law or their party pledge, and ‘faithless’ electors who try to buck the system are subject to fine and/or replacement in some states.

[CodeToad]

I think Red States should pass bills that no Elector can be a Democrat.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"But the Constitution does basically leave it to the State Legislatures to determine how a state’s EV’s will be cast."

It specifically says in Article 2 of the Constitution that the electors will choose the President. It leaves it up to the State to choose the electors, but choosing it by saying that whoever wins the national elections takes it out of the states hands. It is no longer in the power of the State government or the people of that state. This now means that someone living in Florida will have just as much say in choosing Colorado's electors as someone who lives in Colorado. I don't see how that's constitutional.

This crap all started with the 17th amendment. That amendment needs to be repealed.

[discostu]

There aren’t enough pro-active ticked off radicals to matter. Not being cute. Bothering to understand. The fact of the matter is in this country people are too busy to rebel. They got jobs and stuff. Sure they’ll bitch. But they always bitch. Then they go to work.

[NobleFree]

Con. Yes.

[Political Junkie Too]

Right.

So back to your first reply, why the question about my comment re: states agreeing to mutually vote for the national popular vote is a binding agreement? Your citation was suggesting that Congressional approval of interstate compacts was narrow and only applied to binding agreements between states.

Isn't the NPV movement also a binding agreement between states that would trigger the need for Congressional approval?

-PJ

[Engedi]

I don’t see it being an issue should a Republican win because it won’t happen. With mass exodus from California to Colorado it has turned a conservative state to a almost liberal one. Add to it the wave of no reason absentee voting and people being able to pick up your ballot and turn it in; I don’t see a Republican winning in any future election.

[NobleFree]

why the question about my comment re: states agreeing to mutually vote for the national popular vote is a binding agreement?

Your "is not" formulation seemed to imply I was taking the position that NPV was not a binding agreement - which I was not.

[Political Junkie Too]

Ok. Just to be clear, your position is that the NPV is a binding agreement between states, and that binding agreements require the approval of Congress?

That is my position.

-PJ

[NobleFree]

your position is that the NPV is a binding agreement between states, and that binding agreements require the approval of Congress?

Yes.

[Political Junkie Too]

Great. So what were we arguing about?!? :-)

-PJ