31 thoughts on “Colorado”

  1. Why have states when you can have city states? It is funny that Wikipedia describes city states thus: “A city-state is a sovereign state that consists of a city and its dependent territories.” I don’t recall how London was ever dependent on Rome, yet it was once part of the Roman Empire.

    1. The Romans at the Londinium colony built the first bridge across the Thames in 46. So infrastructure. Yes, I said 46…. 🙂

      1. An an Illinois ex-pat… +10000
        Does anyone seriously believe in the newly elected Madigan sock puppet?

  3. With the legalization of pot and the surrender if its voting rights, Colorado is well on it’s way to being purely a state of mind.

  4. You know why, Rand. They don’t care about the Constitution; they only care about obtaining and maintaining power by any means necessary. “Our candidate can’t win enough states? Let’s change the rules.” If a Republican ever won the popular vote but lost the EC vote, they woudn’t care at all.

    I wish Trump would campaign like crazy so he *could* beat the Democrat in the popular vote. It would be fun to laugh in all the faces of the people supporting NPV and pointing out the giant own goal they’d’ve perpretated on themselves.

    2. Our friends to the left do have a fetish for destroying the fabric and institutions of our society. What is the end game? Surely they realize that if they get the policies they want, it will lead to civil war.

      1. The end game is that the West collapses and the Red Army can roll in unimpeded to bring the Communist utopia the left want.

        They just haven’t noticed that the USSR no longer exists. They also don’t realize that the useful idiots are the first to be lined up and shot after the commies take over.

  5. A National Popular vote shifts power to those States corrupt enough to inflate their totals with illegal votes. Among other benefits, the electoral college limits the reach of a corrupt State in national elections, and accounts for differences in how elections are conducted in each State.

    1. Bingo. It’s much easier for Democrats to stage mass electoral fraud in states they control than in states that Republicans control. Without the electoral college they only need a few million fake votes in California to steal the election.

    2. I think my state could easily switch to a system whereby we each get twenty votes, so Trump would get 24 million Bluegrass votes instead of 1.2 million. Remember, every vote must count!

    3. Corruption at the scale necessary to swing the majority of the popular vote is actually pretty hard to do. You are talking about hundreds of thousands to millions of fraudulent votes, and spread over multiple States. Fraud at such scale would be easily detected and destroy the legitimacy of the election.

      However, undetectable fraud that could affect the election outcome is actually one vulnerability of the Electoral College system. Because if the election comes down to just one swing State, like it did in Florida in 2000, then just a tiny amount of fraud in a single State could sway the entire Electoral College. Less than 1,000 fraudulent votes in one State could have swayed the whole election!

      That’s why I could be sympathetic to replacing the Electoral College. But the Interstate Compact scheme does it wrong and institutes a system of winning with a mere plurality of the national popular vote. Not a Majority!

      1. You apparently haven’t seen the multitude of ways the Comifornia vote can be corrupted. Universal vote by mail, no voter ID, motor voter with licenses for illegals, ballot harvesting. So not only illegally registered voters, but mechanisms where it’s easy to vote in the name of someone else, and an easy way to inject ballots as needed to tip the balance.

        1. If the popular vote actually mattered, then Commiefornia wouldn’t be ignored as it is now.

          Right now, it doesn’t matter what Commiefornia does, because everyone knows there is no chance for the Democrats to lose the Statewide majority.

          But oh, if the popular vote mattered? Then no candidate could afford to ignore Commiefornia. Not with the wealth of potential votes there. And that sort of attention would quickly reveal to the Nation any large scale fraud.

          Certainly any fraud of the scale necessary to swing the national majority would be seen.

  7. Hmm… sponsored by a congressman from my town… I’d much rather see a bill pushing for ranked choice voting, and maybe not making CO’s electoral votes allocated on a winner-takes-all basis. That would go a lot further to making sure all Coloradoans voices were properly heard.

    ~Jon

    1. Ahh but that’s exactly why the EC was set up that way, as winner takes all regardless of how close the popular vote was within that state. To avoid a contested general election result! Not of course that it can’t happen, esp. if it gets thrown into the Supreme Court. Given the political climate of today, what would happen should the election of 2020 have a result similar to that of 2000? Scary.

  8. I might be sympathetic to replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote, but the details of the current interstate compact scheme reveals why the compact is wrong, potentially dangerous, and probably unconstitutional.

    Under the Electoral College, the winner must get a MAJORITY of the Electoral College votes. Not a plurality of votes! That prevents a small regional faction of the Nation from taking the Presidency.

    But the interstate compact scheme would allow a candidate with a mere plurality of the popular vote to win. Since the end of WWII, only three Democratic candidates have managed to win a majority of the popular vote: LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and Obama. All the other Democratic winners only received a plurality of the popular vote.

    1. I might be sympathetic to replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote

      I wouldn’t be. The president was never meant to be elected by the people. He is elected by the states.

      1. Ah, but with the Electoral College, in practice we can see the President is not elected by all the States, in practice the election is decided by just the swing States.

        Why should my vote in California count for nothing? Why should the Presidential candidates try to buy off swing States with policies which harm the national interest? Like the Iowa corn subsidy?

        And most scary of all, a tiny amount of fraud in a single swing State could sway the entire national election. Many people believe that is actually what happened in the election of 1960. Democrats believe that is what happened in 2000. The Electoral College system provides a strong temptation to engage in such fraud.

  9. Professor, I’m confused!

    Colorado’s electoral votes went to Clinton and not Trump? Which means that if their Popular Vote system was in place, it wouldn’t have changed their vote?

    But if in a future election Trump wins the popular vote, they would have to award their electoral votes to Mr. Trump?

    Is this sort of thinking along the lines “If we do this, we will shame Ohio and South Carolina into going along?”

    Is this like what Germany is doing, shuttering their nuclear power plants and their remaining coal power plants next, with the idea this will shame the U.S. into doing the same? Only if the U.S. goes along, it won’t really much matter because China and India will burn more coal than ever?

  10. Well, if any states do ever actually start doing this, they will repeal these laws as soon as they cause the “wrong” candidate to win.

Comments are closed.