- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Colorado governor will sign bill aimed at bypassing Electoral College
Posted on 2/25/19 at 7:40 pm to Sentrius
Posted on 2/25/19 at 7:40 pm to Sentrius
quote:
Unconstitutional and will be struck down in court. States can’t set conditions in federal elections.
I oppose it but it isn’t unconstitutional. States are free to allocate their votes in manner they choose.
1
Posted on 2/25/19 at 7:42 pm to udtiger
quote:
The only argument is that a state's electors can only be determined by the votes of that state.
Which isn’t true. Early on, many states did not hold elections in the electoral college
Posted on 2/25/19 at 7:42 pm to TOKEN
The fairest way would be for those states to distribute their electoral votes proportionally to popular vote in that state. Instead of a winner take all. Those 12 states can do that and everyone else will continue as is.
Posted on 2/25/19 at 7:43 pm to TOKEN
From a Democrat perspective I don’t get this. Their EV’s went to Hillary. The only chance that they don’t go to whoever the Dems run in 2020 is if they pass this. Would be hilarious if it passed and caused Trump to take Colorado.
Posted on 2/25/19 at 7:45 pm to TOKEN
Lol at Colorado
Posted on 2/25/19 at 7:46 pm to CaptSpaulding
quote:
From a Democrat perspective I don’t get this. Their EV’s went to Hillary. The only chance that they don’t go to whoever the Dems run in 2020 is if they pass this. Would be hilarious if it passed and caused Trump to take Colorado.
The Pact doesn’t take effect until at least 270 votes worth of states agree meaning that if it does take effect, the national vote will determine the Presidency
Posted on 2/25/19 at 7:47 pm to Sentrius
quote:
Unconstitutional and will be struck down in court. States can’t set conditions in federal elections.
I believe it is up to the state to determine its electoral vote distribution. What is in question to me is that can a state disenfranchise its own voters by awarding its own electoral votes based on votes from other states or the total popular vote...
Posted on 2/25/19 at 7:49 pm to Sentrius
Denver is the new SF, rest of the state is redneck as frick.
Posted on 2/25/19 at 7:50 pm to GetmorewithLes
I think this compact will be challenged at the state level. I believe only a couple actually put the question to the voters (who stupidly tossed away their political power)
Posted on 2/25/19 at 7:51 pm to GetmorewithLes
quote:
What is in question to me is that can a state disenfranchise its own voters by awarding its own electoral votes based on votes from other states or the total popular vote...
1. There is no right to vote on the federal level. States are not required to even hold elections in the Electoral College.
2. There would not be a de facto disenfranchisement because their citizens would still be voting in the election to determine the Presidency.
Posted on 2/25/19 at 7:51 pm to TOKEN
This will be a disaster unless we see voter ID laws on a national level
Posted on 2/25/19 at 7:52 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
I oppose it but it isn’t unconstitutional. States are free to allocate their votes in manner they choose.
How does Article I, Section 10 play into this? States can't enter into an alliance or a compact with one another. And the states themselves aren't amending their election laws immediately, which I agree is perfectly fine. Any amendment is dependent upon other states following suit until 270 total electoral votes are reached.
Posted on 2/25/19 at 7:53 pm to ninthward
Doesn't boulder suck?
Posted on 2/25/19 at 7:54 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
There would not be a de facto disenfranchisement because their citizens would still be voting in the election to determine the Presidency.
The states vote could go to candidate B and Candidate A wins the popular vote and hence the state awards EV's to the candidate that the state did not vote for... I call that a disenfranchisement
It is also possible that the next time the state houses turn over that the bill gets repealed.
Posted on 2/25/19 at 7:57 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
How does Article I, Section 10 play into this?
Only applies when a compact between states encroaches of federal supremacy which is not the case here.
Posted on 2/25/19 at 7:57 pm to NYNolaguy1
The 438 votes determined by congressional districts should be decided by the voters in that particular district. The other 2 that each state has can be done the same way they are now.
That’s the only change I’ll support.
That’s the only change I’ll support.
Posted on 2/25/19 at 7:59 pm to GetmorewithLes
quote:
The states vote could go to candidate B and Candidate A wins the popular vote and hence the state awards EV's to the candidate that the state did not vote for... I call that a disenfranchisement
Again, there is no federal requirement that electoral college votes go to the winner of the state popular vote. In fact, two states already have a different mechanism for allocating their votes.
People are confusing tradition with law.
quote:
It is also possible that the next time the state houses turn over that the bill gets repealed.
True, but if the value of votes falls below 270, the all states would be back to the status quo.
Posted on 2/25/19 at 8:02 pm to TigerMyth36
quote:
These clowns seem to forget the entire purpose of the Electoral College.
Small states would never have joined the union if high population states controlled the government. Simple fact.
Liberals really do seem to be heading towards a civil war they will lose badly.
And yes, trying to focus all power in a few highly populated states would eventually lead to dissolution of the United States and most likely could lead to another civil war.
Exactly. It bares repeating.
Posted on 2/25/19 at 8:06 pm to scrooster
quote:
Colorado will become the 12th state to join the national popular vote interstate compact. Those 12 states and the District of Columbia, which has also passed a popular-vote bill, account for 181 electoral votes, just under 90 shy of the 270 votes a presidential candidate needs to win the White House.
Meh, no red or purple state is going to pass this junk so they'll never get close to 270
Posted on 2/25/19 at 8:08 pm to TOKEN
quote:
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) will sign a measure to award his state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, moving a countrywide coalition one step closer to circumventing the Electoral College.
Wait, so a Republican could win CO, but they would award all those votes to a Democrat if they won the popular vote?
Page 2 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News