Colorado decides to bypass electoral collage

Sounds to me like someone has a bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome!

Whoa! I misunderstood the bill. Now I get it.

Here's the problem for the short-sided idiots who are pushing this NPV route. It dis-empowers the voters in those states that approve it. What happens if a Republican loses New York and Cali but wins the national popular vote? Betcha the Dems in those two states would be furious, especially if it cost them what would have been an Electoral College victory under normal (non-NPV) rules.

You're right - this may have to be adjudicated by SCOTUS.

The irony is while the Dems attack the EC because it gives unequal weight to voters in different states, this NPV runaround would dilute the weight of voters in states that adopt it even more! Originally Posted by lustylad

Or two lib-retards split the lib-retard vote, and the conservative candidate gets those electoral votes by default because his/her popular vote is greater than either of the lib-retard candidates. Shazam! Lib-retard heads will explode.

Whoa! I misunderstood the bill. Now I get it.

Here's the problem for the short-sided idiots who are pushing this NPV route. It dis-empowers the voters in those states that approve it. What happens if a Republican loses New York and Cali but wins the national popular vote? Betcha the Dems in those two states would be furious, especially if it cost them what would have been an Electoral College victory under normal (non-NPV) rules.

You're right - this may have to be adjudicated by SCOTUS.

The irony is while the Dems attack the EC because it gives unequal weight to voters in different states, this NPV runaround would dilute the weight of voters in states that adopt it even more! Originally Posted by lustylad

Or two lib-retards split the lib-retard vote, and the conservative candidate gets those electoral votes by default because his/her popular vote is greater than either of the lib-retard candidates. Shazam! Lib-retard heads will explode. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Based on what I'm reading, the states which have enacted the National Popular Vote bill have 181 electoral votes. For the bill to take effect, they need states with 89 more electoral votes to enact it. This presumably has nothing to do with the Constitution or federal law -- they just wrote the bill so that states with the majority of electoral votes (270) must independently approve it before it goes into effect.

So far the states that have enacted it are Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, Vermont, California, Rhode Island, New York, Connecticut, and Colorado.

With the system we've got now, the Democrat will win the electoral votes of each of those particular states, except maybe Colorado. So effectively, these twelve blue states, and one purple state (Colorado), are all agreeing to give their electoral votes to any Republican who gets the majority of the votes at the national level. Any state that doesn't enact the bill would continue as it has in the past -- its electoral votes go to whoever receives the most votes in that particular state.

As long as red states don't sign onto this, and none of them have, this is a Republican's wet dream.

Based on what I'm reading, the states which have enacted the National Popular Vote bill have 181 electoral votes. For the bill to take effect, they need states with 89 more electoral votes to enact it. This presumably has nothing to do with the Constitution or federal law -- they just wrote the bill so that states with the majority of electoral votes (270) must independently approve it before it goes into effect.

So far the states that have enacted it are Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, Vermont, California, Rhode Island, New York, Connecticut, and Colorado.

With the system we've got now, the Democrat will win the electoral votes of each of those particular states, except maybe Colorado. So effectively, these twelve blue states, and one purple state (Colorado), are all agreeing to give their electoral votes to any Republican who gets the majority of the votes at the national level. Any state that doesn't enact the bill would continue as it has in the past -- its electoral votes go to whoever receives the most votes in that particular state.

As long as red states don't sign onto this, and none of them have, this is a Republican's wet dream. Originally Posted by Tiny

Yup! Their bloody heads will explode when that happens.

As I mentioned in the start of the thread...the law of unintended consequences...which the left is so adept at!!

The electoral fucked up last time. They could have elected any conservative they wanted. They still put Trump in office. History books will mock them for that.


That said, It will likely be liberals filing suit if the election goes to a conservative be a use the won the popular and lost the electoral vote. It's happened twice now for liberals, the pendulum will swing the other way at some point. A republican will lose electoral vote but win the popular vote and then democrats will complain. Originally Posted by grean

The electoral fucked up the last time??? Since most electoral votes are locked in to results of the election how do you figure that someone fucked up. Who is that someone? So are you saying that the electoral college should have gone off script and elected Ted Cruz? I suggest you read and digest the entire section on elections.

NPV has 14th amendment issues. it'll fail the smell test.

Did some reading on the NPV compact

First - a definition -https://www.fairvote.org/national_popular_vote
The Constitution gives states full control over how they allocate their electoral votes. The current winner-take-all method, in which the winner of the statewide popular vote wins all of that state's electoral votes, is a choice—and states can choose differently. Under the National Popular Vote interstate compact, states choose to allocate their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC. This compact takes effect only when enough states sign on to guarantee that the national popular vote winner wins the presidency. That means states with a combined total of 270 electoral votes—a majority of the Electoral College—must join the compact for it to take effect.


Second - 10th amendment to the Constitution.

Amendment X Rights Reserved to States or People

Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791. The first 10 amendments form the Bill of Rights
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


The Tenth Amendment’s simple language—“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”—emphasizes that the inclusion of a bill of rights does not change the fundamental character of the national government. It remains a government of limited and enumerated powers, so that the first question involving an exercise of federal power is not whether it violates someone’s rights, but whether it exceeds the national government’s enumerated powers.



The 10th Amendment seems to state that allocation of electoral college votes may be done by the States as the States see fit. Hence, A federal legal challenge on Constitutional basis likely will not fly. Vote allocation to the electoral College is a right reserved to the States, and an end around run on the present method of allocation. As above - if enough States approve the compact to reach 270 electoral college votes - it is a done deal.

Another issue with the DPST's is the Federal Government being of "limited and enumerated powers" - which the DPST's will not like that idea at all! Seems a bit hypocritical to see the DPST's supporting States Rights over federal unlimited power over the people.


Cogent and constructive debate invited.

Cursing and name-calling will be RTM'ed
Thank You

Based on what I'm reading, the states which have enacted the National Popular Vote bill have 181 electoral votes. For the bill to take effect, they need states with 89 more electoral votes to enact it. This presumably has nothing to do with the Constitution or federal law -- they just wrote the bill so that states with the majority of electoral votes (270) must independently approve it before it goes into effect.

So far the states that have enacted it are Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, Vermont, California, Rhode Island, New York, Connecticut, and Colorado.

With the system we've got now, the Democrat will win the electoral votes of each of those particular states, except maybe Colorado. So effectively, these twelve blue states, and one purple state (Colorado), are all agreeing to give their electoral votes to any Republican who gets the majority of the votes at the national level. Any state that doesn't enact the bill would continue as it has in the past -- its electoral votes go to whoever receives the most votes in that particular state.

As long as red states don't sign onto this, and none of them have, this is a Republican's wet dream. Originally Posted by Tiny

Thanks for explaining it to them,, their heads were about to explode.

As above - if enough States approve the compact to reach 270 electoral college votes - it is a done deal. Originally Posted by oeb11

Thank you for the clarification, oeb.

So...is this something that would be in effect for next year's election should the 270 EC votes + be achieved (per enuff states)?

From what you've just told us my guess is a resounding YES....I'm just not sure as to what would prevent that from being the case....

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...ocrats-rights/

The electoral fucked up the last time??? Since most electoral votes are locked in to results of the election how do you figure that someone fucked up. Who is that someone? So are you saying that the electoral college should have gone off script and elected Ted Cruz? I suggest you read and digest the entire section on elections. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Only 26 states have rules binding electors. The electors may still choose to cast a faithless vote. They could be fined but they could have voted for anyone else including Cruz or someone not even on the ballot, like Gen. Powell.

Thank you for the clarification, oeb.

So...is this something that would be in effect for next year's election should the 270 EC votes + be achieved (per enuff states)?

From what you've just told us my guess is a resounding YES....I'm just not sure as to what would prevent that from being the case.... Originally Posted by Chateau Becot

NPV would take effect - as I understand it- if enough States enact it to reach 270 electoral college votes. Whether that will happen for 2020 election - I have no idea.

Perhaps Grean could expand on his post above.




Thank you CB - for cogent and constructive posts.

Only 26 states have rules binding electors. The electors may still choose to cast a faithless vote. They could be fined but they could have voted for anyone else including Cruz or someone not even on the ballot, like Gen. Powell. Originally Posted by grean

As I said, most votes are locked in. Since electors are party faithful, they don't want to slit their own throats by straying from the reservation. Unless, they changed parties afterwards, got well and truly paid, or thought that the winner was so reprehensible that they could not vote for them.

why do they even have to need a compact when they could do it now.

the NPV is quite different from the current elector system which is the popular vote of each state to win the electors. they are talking of withholding the electoral vote until the national popular vote winner is announced.

270 national electors vs. 269 state electors