Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message
locked post

Colorado electoral votes question

Posted on 11/10/24 at 12:44 am
Posted by habz007
New Orleans
Member since Nov 2007
4969 posts
Posted on 11/10/24 at 12:44 am
Sorry … I’m sure you guys have discussed. I’m in and out the board everyday, but tough to stay on top of everything. It’s been difficult to search and I can’t get clear answer on Google…


So it seems Colorado voted to give their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. Is that official? Or is it just a pact they signed for the future?

Clearly their state legislature will reneg and remove it going forward. They never envisioned this result.


Thanks
Posted by Rebel
Graceland
Member since Jan 2005
143653 posts
Posted on 11/10/24 at 12:50 am to
It was a lot more than Colorado.

But it doesn’t kick in until enough states join.

Off of memory it’s CA, WA, OR, CO, NM, IL, MN, NH, VT, NY, MA, CT, RI, MD, and DE.
Posted by Rebel
Graceland
Member since Jan 2005
143653 posts
Posted on 11/10/24 at 12:51 am to
If the law were in effect, Kamala would only have 7 EV’s this election.
Posted by TigerMyth36
River Ridge
Member since Nov 2005
41481 posts
Posted on 11/10/24 at 12:51 am to
The compact never went into effect. They had to have a certain number of states and electoral votes for it to kick in and they haven't reached that amount.
Posted by The Boat
Member since Oct 2008
177149 posts
Posted on 11/10/24 at 12:58 am to
The compact goes into effect if they get enough states together that total a sum of 270 EVs. They don’t have that amount yet so it’s not active. It’s their liberal way of taking what they perceive as a stand without having to actually do anything. All talk no action, reason why Trump was elected.
Posted by RemouladeSawce
Uranus
Member since Sep 2008
17795 posts
Posted on 11/10/24 at 1:10 am to
quote:

The compact goes into effect if they get enough states together that total a sum of 270 EVs. They don’t have that amount yet so it’s not active. It’s their liberal way of taking what they perceive as a stand without having to actually do anything. All talk no action, reason why Trump was elected.
There’s also Constitutionality questions even if they hit 270
Posted by newmexicotiger
Member since Sep 2017
4404 posts
Posted on 11/10/24 at 3:11 am to
quote:

They had to have a certain number of states and electoral votes for it to kick in and they haven't reached that


We won't know what that number is until they decide it's to their advantage to tell us.
Posted by ChineseBandit58
Pearland, TX
Member since Aug 2005
49474 posts
Posted on 11/10/24 at 3:18 am to
quote:

They had to have a certain number of states and electoral votes for it to kick in and they haven't reached that amount.

I had asked this question earlier - and still have a question:

IF that 'threshold' is ever reached, does the law hold them to that pact regardless of the outcome?

OR is it written so that they have the OPTION of choosing that way of allocating their EC votes IF they get the desire they want.

It would seem to me that any LAW would have to work whether or not the people initially proposing the law liked the outcome or not. But is there wiggle room in the 'interpretation' such that it DOES give the states the OPTION of choosing the "new way" or the "old way" depending on the OUTCOME??

I would expect these self-serving critters to do the latter.
Posted by ChineseBandit58
Pearland, TX
Member since Aug 2005
49474 posts
Posted on 11/10/24 at 3:21 am to
quote:

We won't know what that number is until they decide it's to their advantage to tell us.

That's a better way of asking the same question I just posed - plus it contains the answer.

= 'It only is applicable IF it gives us the result we want."

first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram