Colorado joins popular vote wins EC vote club

On the phone so apologies for terrible link attempts:.
Can someone explain how this makes every vote count to me?
You small words I can be slow at times..

Here is my hypothetical situation, say colorado in 2024 goes red but the democrats for president wins popular vote, you just suppressed the vote of the state.
www.foxnews.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">fox

How does this make sure every vote counts??

If you really wanted every vote to count it would be say the R got 40% the D got 45% libertarian got 5% and you split the EC by the percentage vote they got in the state.

That would force them to actually act like they care about more than the big cities.

Least in my book.

a reply to: Irishhaf

They don't care about every vote. Democrats are frauds.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Once again, Colorado jumps onboard the short-bus with the rest of the window-lickers!

But hey, don't be bogartin' the roach, dude!

a reply to: AnonymousNutjob

They only care about their vote.

a reply to: Irishhaf

It's actually already legal to split a states electoral votes. In 2008 Nebraska awarded votes to two different candidates. 4 Red votes, and 1 Blue were awarded.

I'm not sure why it doesn't happen more often, it's a really common suggestion for distributing them.

a reply to: TwoBlades

Ummm, NE is a split state! One of only two.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

ah that makes way more sense then.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: TwoBlades

Ummm, NE is a split state! One of only two.

There should definitely be more split states.

California for example.

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

well; so I'm assuming the split states themselves are still forced into unanimous electoral support; so like Nebraska is more like 2 whole states than actually a 'split' of votes; I think being able to split the votes would be better, but I also am not sure, the electoral college itself was designed specifically to combat the issues of the popular vote, so I can't say that it doesn't disallow splitting without reason, they probably considered it, then considered against it.

I don't think letting people vote is a good idea.

That only works in a world of educated thoughtful individuals.

It was a nice gesture but is now too volatile and dangerous to even risk much longer.

a reply to: muzzleflash

That's sort of an argument for the electoral college to instead be representative based rather than a popular vote, because the outcome of the college is instead 50 states that are politically dynamic at the local levels. You don't technically have to vote in a Republic, you can just move to the state with the ideals that fall most in line with you, and only if none of those exist, then you move to the closest and vote.

By having representatives, we have the freedom not to vote. If everything was decided by popular majority, people not voting would be a huge deal, it would be illegal not to vote, and you would be fined if you didn't, like in Australia. Fun Fact, Voter turnout for the Nazi party was 89%, because a popular vote creates one track scenarios straight into fascism. In a representative democracy, it's more like lawyers in court that have to explain their depositions; but with a popular vote, politics is simple, there is 5 white people, 3 brown people, and 2 blacks, all white needs to do for a majority is kill one of the blacks. Popular votes logically inevitably disenfranchise minorities and just boils everything down to a number of opponents rather than discussions.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: TwoBlades

Ummm, NE is a split state! One of only two.

There should definitely be more split states.

California for example.

Well, the problem with this is, where does it stop? So, for example, let's just say it stops at the County level. There are (64) Counties in CO, but there are only (9) Electoral Votes. So how are you going to apportion those (9) Electoral votes over (64) Counties who could all vote differently? You'd need (64) Electors to do that fairly, because if you assigned more than one County to one Elector and then there was a split within that Elector's jurisdiction, how would they cast their vote?

ETA - If the answer to this question is...just eliminate the EC altogether, well, then you might as well re-write the Constitution because we would no longer be a Constitutional Republic.

***shivers***

a reply to: TwoBlades

Good post.
Sadly this is our harsh reality.

It is frightening to see how the news media outlets wield so much power over people as well.

If the media controls the info flow, and is corrupt, than the voters aren't even individuals any more. They are extensions of their masters doing their bidding.

None of that seems legit to me.

I absolutely refuse to be Lorded over by my inferiors it's just unacceptable. Its begging for a huge train wreck. I don't think I should pay for the mistakes of everyone else. I will I know, but I shouldn't have to.

Maybe we won't need to vote anymore after this year.

This is why I always wonder of some of these politicians are high when they draft some of these ballot initiatives!

Do they even give one single thought to how something like this might be implemented if such an initiative passes???? Apparently not, because prop. 113 appears to have succeeded.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
This is why I always wonder of some of these politicians are high when they draft some of these ballot initiatives!

Do they even give one single thought to how something like this might be implemented if such an initiative passes???? Apparently not, because prop. 113 appears to have succeeded.

They need to get high.

The psychotic control freak destroy everything mentality is the hallmark of someone who has never had a mind opening experience.

It should be legal to inject all politicians with lsd lol.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
I don't think letting people vote is a good idea.

That only works in a world of educated thoughtful individuals.

It was a nice gesture but is now too volatile and dangerous to even risk much longer.

Should make voting only for persons aged 25+ who own land

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I'm kidding really cuz I dont know who these ppl are or what they do in their free time.

And after thinking about it, I've met a lot of psychotic control freak deadhead hippies.

Hmmm maybe it should be legal to inject politicians with lead instead of lsd. Yes I like this one better.

Open their closed mind with lead. That sounds much funnier.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

the answer to maintain the constitution is simple, everything must be a state. the question from there tho is like, what is worth dividing, and then again where is the line?

2070 - "The 1,700 United States of America!"

a reply to: Irishhaf

my hands are still busted so i'll keep this short.

TDS is a hell of a drug.

i live in CO and many people i know are still upset that Trump won thanks to the electoral college, so rather than think they just want rid of it because they hate him so much.

like many people who stupidly make stupid changes this will backfire on them. one day the popular vote will go a direction they don't like and they'll have nobody to blame but themselves.

most of these people only wish for this because it's for their vote, if it were to benefit the other side i can almost guarantee they'd be against it. i almost bet next election they'll vote for it to change back if they start losing.