Colorado Senate Passes Bill Nixing Electoral College in Favor of Popular Vote

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

roflol sorry don't want Cal-if/or-nia or the New-York-Corks running the whole country.

Mob rule is what ruined Vene-zoo-elia 🤣

Rule by the one is the opposite end of the spectrum to rule by the many.

Mob rule and Democracy are as related to each other as dictatorship relates to tyranny.

Popular vote is how you get your state officials. If you think anyone in America wants the same people who elected roadkill like Pelosi and Waters to decide our elections, you're insane. Los Angeles has a Typhus problem form rats and fleas, CA is slowly becoming its own third world country and nobody wants that brought here. Go to any democrat controlled city and look around at the crime, disease, homeless, and poverty. Keep that # to yourselves.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Phage

These are all states that vote Democrat, historically... it will be hilarious the next time a Republican wins the popular vote and those states are forced to honor their pact and also vote for the Republican... Oh, wait... that will be when they abandon the pact and say "it was nonbinding and possibly not even legal" while their party goes DEAD quiet on this abolishment of the Electoral College issue.

Exactly this. I can't believe these idiots can't see how badly this will backfire on them. I hope they pull this same crap here in California. It will be just the thing to get the millions of conservatives who have given up and don't bother to vote up off of their asses and to the polls. When Trump wins the popular vote by a landslide the reeeeing will be heard 'round the world!

a reply to: chr0naut

Any ducking moron who wants to abolish the electoral College doesn't understand what the USA is and shouldn't be able to vote, fuch any immigrant who has to pass the nationalization tests understand more than you ducking morons.

The US is a celebration of nation states not one ducking state. The electoral College is there to give smaller states a fair shake.

Yes they are awarded points based on population but ideally those points are also regionalized within the states to give rural areas a fair shake over centralized areas.

Damn we need civics classes again. Hell, this country would be better off teaching the constitution in school than teaching math for Christ's sake.

Jaden

originally posted by: Phage

I understand and agree with the concept of electoral voting but the Constitution is silent on the criteria by which electors vote. That has fallen to each state to decide. Or not.

I agree with you and states can be rather different. My original point was to the Kiwi as he couldn't understand why we were not just a full democracy. I actually have no issues with what CO wants to do, now if I lived there and the citizens of the state voted one way and the electors votes differently I would be pissed and my future in state votes would reflect that. I'm really not sure what they are trying for here anyways, they should vote as the people of the state voted.

originally posted by: DanDanDat
I agree with this.

We should do away with the Electoral College. People from areas of the country, like my own New York Metro, should have a greater say in what happens to the rest of the country...

Ok, I'm listening.

Explain why you believe that people living in New York City should be able to dictate to people living in rural South Georgia how to live their lives.

originally posted by: JinMI
Democracy encourages mob rule (corruption) and is the main reason why we have a representative republic.

True, except you should have said 'Constitutional Republic', not 'representative republic (meaningless).

A Constitutional Republic, there are significant limits to dumbocracy/mob rule, embodied in said Constitution. In a representative republic, there may or may not be.

Colorado officials need to put the bong down. Their electoral votes have gone to the winner of the popular vote in every election besides 1976 and 1996. Idiots.

originally posted by: Phage
The Constitution just states how electoral votes are cast and who is excluded from being an elector. Nothing in the Constitution which says anything about how electors should vote.

Maybe that's because any law, Local, State or Federal, dictating - forcing - someone to vote in a particular way, isn't a vote, it is a dictatorship.

Anyone who cannot see how ludicrous it is to say that a State can pass a law requiring an Elector to vote any particular way is a clueless moron. With such a system, there is no need for an Electoral 'vote', only the popular vote.

So, such a law, even passed individually at the State level, is an attempt to do away with what is mandated by the Constitution, and as such is blatantly unConstitutional.

a reply to: chr0naut

There is not a single version of democracy.
The version you are advocating for is mob rule - the "pitchforks" model that the founders of the USA were specifically trying to avoid. It doesn't work - anywhere - and never has.

You've embraced this idiocy because you didn't get the result you wanted in 2016 and are still upset about it. You ae no longer capable of rational thought because you have let bitterness consume you.

originally posted by: Phage
I understand and agree with the concept of electoral voting but the Constitution is silent on the criteria by which electors vote. That has fallen to each state to decide. Or not.

Regardless, if the Electors are not free to vote as they wish, it isn't voting, it is dictating.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: circuitsports
Basically people that don't grow any of the food and only consume it want to control the people who grow the food and strip them of any profit or ability to continue doing so until everyone dies.

And you believe that?

It is essentially factual.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: amazing
I still don't know why most of you guys don't want to abolish the Electoral college?

I get that you think it favors democrats. But the Electoral college favors democrats by giving California and New York too much power. Also remember that the popular vote almost always follows the electoral vote anyway, except in like three instances. Also remember that, only the president is elected using the Electoral college. We still have congress that is elected with the popular vote.

it's kind of in the constitution, so there is that.
www.archives.gov...

And I get that, but that's why we have amendments. I don't think the founding father's thought that certain liberal strongholds would have so much power back then.

a reply to: schuyler

I disagree. Remember that California and New York conservatives are disenfranchised right now. Their states always swing liberal. They're votes never count. But in a popular election...their votes would finally count. That's just two examples.

originally posted by: a325nt

originally posted by: amazing
I still don't know why most of you guys don't want to abolish the Electoral college?

I get that you think it favors democrats.

It favors states rights. If I wanted to live in a commie # hole I'd move to California- but i don't, so I won't.
I also don't want California voters dictating the rules in my state- it's bad enough how much influence they have in congress.

I disagree. The electoral college favors cities rights. One glaring example is Oregon. Most of the state is conservative except for the two big cities of portland and Salem. Those tend to swing very liberal. Getting rid of the Electoral college would finally give the majority of that state an actual vote instead of just those two cities.

originally posted by: generik

originally posted by: amazing
I still don't know why most of you guys don't want to abolish the Electoral college?

I get that you think it favors democrats. But the Electoral college favors democrats by giving California and New York too much power. Also remember that the popular vote almost always follows the electoral vote anyway, except in like three instances. Also remember that, only the president is elected using the Electoral college. We still have congress that is elected with the popular vote.

you do of course realize that most if not all free countries have something similar to the electoral collage involved in choosing the leaders of their countries? in fact many countries don't even "vote" for their leader at all, so you might not even realize that there is something exactly like the electoral college in play. instead of electing the leader of the country separate, the leader of the party that wins the most seats (elected positions), in their version of congress becomes the country's leader. it might for example be called "Parliament", with the party who wins the most "seats", becoming "Prime Minister" as in countries like Canada. this just like the electoral college in the US ensures that everyone in the country is fairly represented in choosing the leader of the country, and insures that it is not only a few small areas due to population density get to choose the leader of the government. the leader of the government being the representative of their country to the world, and acts as head of the government.

it's actually rather ironic that a state like Colorado would be the one's pushing to make their own voters completely irrelevant in Presidential elections. would they like places like California and New York voting for their congressmen and senators as well for them? because that is in effect what they are doing with this insanity is having the areas with the most and largest cities choosing who will be President and thus representing them to the world and who will be head of their government. congratulations for making yourselves irrelevant in politics Colorado.

I disagree. The insanity is the electoral college, which gives far too much power to large cities. The large cities control the states...especially the liberal strongholds and in california it's just the southern part of the state. Those cities make all the rural and small down voters inconsequential. Because, if your state, like California always swings liberal, why vote at all. You're republican/conservative votes don't count in california. By changing to popular vote, all of those votes would finally count. Isn't that what we want? Every vote to count?

originally posted by: chr0naut

I'm just speaking what I believe is the truth. I believe in flat taxation based upon productivity, too. For similar reasons, it is a simpler system and more resistant to corruption.

One thing that I find with people that come from many EU countries to include others like New Zealand is they want to suggest what works for them is what America should do, and you just do not realize that your country is about the size and population of one of our small states. Think of a situation with 50 New Zealands all with a wide range of populations and beliefs. How would you like your Trans-Tasman to fall under one Government that the popular vote picks all. Would your 5 million population ever have a say in anything as it goes up each election against Australia's 25 million?

originally posted by: amazing

I disagree. The electoral college favors cities rights. One glaring example is Oregon. Most of the state is conservative except for the two big cities of portland and Salem. Those tend to swing very liberal. Getting rid of the Electoral college would finally give the majority of that state an actual vote instead of just those two cities.

Are you talking land size or population? When you say most of the state is conservative what does that mean when we look at the voting population.

According to the state's election agency, as of December 2017, there were 2,652,935 registered voters in Oregon, with their political party affiliations (highest to lowest) as follows: 36.1% Democratic Party. 30.5% "Non-affiliated" with any party. 26.3% Republican Party

How do these numbers make most of the state conservative... BTW at the state level it is the popular vote for all elections, so I'm not sure your point.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: amazing

I disagree. The electoral college favors cities rights. One glaring example is Oregon. Most of the state is conservative except for the two big cities of portland and Salem. Those tend to swing very liberal. Getting rid of the Electoral college would finally give the majority of that state an actual vote instead of just those two cities.

Are you talking land size or population? When you say most of the state is conservative what does that mean when we look at the voting population.

According to the state's election agency, as of December 2017, there were 2,652,935 registered voters in Oregon, with their political party affiliations (highest to lowest) as follows: 36.1% Democratic Party. 30.5% "Non-affiliated" with any party. 26.3% Republican Party

How do these numbers make most of the state conservative... BTW at the state level it is the popular vote for all elections, so I'm not sure your point.

The point is, that you know Oregon is going to be a Democratic state before the election even starts. It's a given. The last 5 presidental elections. That means that if you're a republican in Oregon, why would you even vote for president? You know your vote won't count. If we got rid of the electoral college, those republican votes would finally count.

I used to live in Oregon so every little city/town place you went was conservative. Salem and Portland were the anomalies.

originally posted by: amazing

The point is, that you know Oregon is going to be a Democratic state before the election even starts. It's a given. The last 5 presidental elections. That means that if you're a republican in Oregon, why would you even vote for president? You know your vote won't count. If we got rid of the electoral college, those republican votes would finally count.

I used to live in Oregon so every little city/town place you went was conservative. Salem and Portland were the anomalies.

Well yes as only 26% of the population is Republican... I'm a republican in the state just above you and I vote... Just remember there is more on the ballot than just the President, and if you are in OR and decide not to vote then you are being stupid as a huge amount of local level elections are decided too, and ALL of them are the popular vote as you want.

So you are comparing what 100 towns with 1000 people in each to Portland's 700k? I'm missing your point still as ALL elections at the state level are popular vote. So your Governor, state reps etc are all as you want, the popular vote.

Never hurts to see things ass-backwards 😎