Colorado Legislature Wants To Game The Electoral College Because Trump!

Colorado Legislature Wants To Game The Electoral College Because Trump!

Colorado Legislature Wants To Game The Electoral College Because Trump!

As our readers are well aware, the 2016 Presidential election did not go as planned for the leftist Democrats, media, and especially Hillary Clinton. The results have led to ad infinitum pearl-clutching about the Electoral College votes. The movement for abolishing the Electoral College has gained momentum, sadly. Which has led Colorado (who is now in the blue stupidity phase) to proffer a bill that would force all nine electoral votes to follow the national popular vote and dump our Constitution into the ditch.

Yes folks, you read that correctly. The Democrat idiots in the Colorado Legislature have decided that our Constitution can go pound sand. You see, we need to win by popular vote always!! Doesn’t matter that you were the last one to cross the finish line, the trophy means YOU WIN!!

Yes indeed, the Colorado legislature wants to be first in the nation for putting forth the ultimate participation trophy prize. The Presidency is all yours as long as you are the most popular on your block!

SIGN ME UP!! …. NOT

Yet folks, this is where we are. Exhibit A:

A bill championed by Sen. Mike Foote, D-Lafayette, is the most accessed bill on the Colorado legislature’s website and could eventually change how the United States chooses its president.

“The bottom line is that every Coloradan should have their voice heard,” said Foote.

Senate Bill 19-042 , if passed, would make Colorado the 13th state to join what’s known as the National Popular Vote interstate compact.

Oh how CUTE! How absolutely wonderful of you that we can all vote for the candidate of our choice….and then have someone we DIDN’T vote for become the winner because ‘popular vote’ trumps all!

Folks, we have an Electoral College for a reason. The more population in a state, the greater the chance that a Presidential candidate can win that state. The less populated states can’t win against the big guys …except for the electoral college.

Guess what? New York went for Hillary. So did Colorado. So therefore it went that the electoral votes cast went to Hillary. But a LOT of other less populated states had their votes go for Trump, which meant that electoral votes go for Trump. That is plainly outlined in our Constitution.

Yet now, Colorado wants to be the big guy on campus and LEAD THE CHARGE in changing up this Republic and subverting our Constitution. Evidently the folks currently in the CO Legislature bought into the election night tears and want to soothe the media’s pain.

Yes indeed, even we here at Victory Girls didn’t see Trump’s win as certain. However, that doesn’t mean that Colorado or ANYONE ELSE should go forth and attempt to right a perceived wrong because ‘TRUMP!”

Quite honestly, I myself believe that this subtle rigging of our votes in order to ensure the favored one wins is definitely antithetical of all that we as a Republic stands for.

The bill itself is SB 19-042. Here’s the thing, it supersedes Colorado’s state rights.

The bill specifies that when the agreement becomes effective, it supersedes any conflicting provisions of Colorado law.

When the agreement becomes effective and governs the appointment of presidential electors, each presidential elector is required to vote for the presidential candidate and, by separate ballot, vice-presidential candidate nominated by the political party or political organization that nominated the presidential elector.

In other words, during a national election, if this passes, Colorado’s state rights don’t matter at all.

This is not right for our Republic. Our founders put in place the structures regarding our national elections and the Electoral College for a reason.

Just because Trump won and your favorite candidate didn’t is not a reason for throwing our Republic into the ditch in favor of participation trophies.

Welcome Instapundit Readers!

Featured Photo Credit: Pixabay, cropped and modified

Written by

30 Comments
  • Scott says:

    One more reason I can’t wait to get the hell out of this once beautiful state! They control both houses, and the sidesaddle governor now, so there’s a good chance this will pass.. Yes, the dims know they can’t win elections based on ideas, so they will do anything and everything they can to rig them across the nation!

    • MikeGiles says:

      Do these idiots realize that it would be possible for a candidate to lose close Presidential elections in 49 states, And still win the election by winning a landslide in ANY one state? How would the Dims like it if they won 2000 Florida style elections in 49 states (300 vote margin), and then lose the Presidency on the basis of a landslide in Nebraska?

    • George Winski says:

      PLEASE don’t leave! If we simply run off to Texas, before long, it will be only Texas that supports the constitution. It’s time for all faithful constitutionalists to take a stand. Time to fight! Time to draw a line in the sand!

  • GWB says:

    force all nine electoral votes to follow the national popular vote
    Why aren’t these idiots immediately arrested for denying their constituents their civil rights? They’re denying them the right to vote. There’s also that “republican form of gov’t” clause.

    could eventually change how the United States chooses its president
    Not without a Constitutional Amendment, Foote-up-Backside.

    “The bottom line is that every Coloradan should have their voice heard,” said Foote.
    Actually, it would do exactly the opposite, Foote-for-Brains.

    The less populated states can’t win against the big guys
    Ah, but you see, we haven’t been a republic of sovereign states for a long time now. We’re just one big happy kumbayah nation, with California “liberty” and NY “justice” for all. Take your tired old ideas and leave them with “history” over there on the rubbish heap. We don’t need none of your “history” or “human nature” ’round here, ’cause we’re gonna make a New Man! *flag waving, fireworks exploding*
    Ow, I think I sprained my sarcasm tendon

    if this passes, Colorado’s state rights don’t matter at all
    That is the WHOLE. POINT.
    It’s much easier to rule a single country than it is to rule 50 fractious states.
    Which is why the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution as they did. They saw “hard to rule” as a FEATURE, not a bug.

    Just because Trump won and your favorite candidate didn’t is not a reason for throwing our Republic into the ditch
    Well, for them it is. Because their favored candidate was all about helping them finally eliminate this pesky problem of freedom-loving constitutionalists. Always remember and never forget – no matter why the local voter votes Democrat, the leaders are all about power, perks, and privileges. They (and way too many Republicans) want to be our new aristocrats and RULE over us.

    THIS is why we have a Second Amendment.
    (And, just in case anyone is wondering, YES, I believe that Coloradans would be well within their rights to remove this man from the legislature at gunpoint and hang him and his co-conspirators in the city square if this passes.)

  • Scott says:

    “THIS is why we have a Second Amendment.
    (And, just in case anyone is wondering, YES, I believe that Coloradans would be well within their rights to remove this man from the legislature at gunpoint and hang him and his co-conspirators in the city square if this passes.)”
    Sadly, it’d be him, and a bunch more GWB… The govt in this state is overrun with idiots like this. Every time you look at the crap they pull, and think “this can’t possibly get worse” another of them says “hold ma beer and watch this”… This is what happens when you fail to keep illegals and caifornians out of your state.. be warned!

  • Note the States that have signed on to the “Compact.” Compare to the States that voted for Hillary Clinton.

    Except for Maine, the Democrats do not pick up a single Electoral College vote. Hillary would have received the single vote that Donald Trump won in the Maine Second Congressional District, if they had used this system then, rather than their split based on Congressional districts. All of the other States are already “winner take all” – and Hillary did take all, thus disenfranchising nearly half of the electorate in those States, by design.

    This is purely a “feel good” proposition.

  • Kevin M says:

    Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution provides that “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress… enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.”

    Doing so is probably an act of insurrection, and certainly a defiance of the US Constitution even before we get to the subject matter.

  • Kevin M says:

    BTW, who certifies the national popular vote, and can we have a nationwide Florida-style recount if it’s close?

    The Electoral College is NOT an accident and it prevents massive fraud in JUST the way that this Compact would enable.

  • Mark Gist says:

    US Constitution, Section I, article 10:
    3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

    This is entering into a compact with other states without the consent of Congress.

    Also, as others have pointed out, it’s only going to help Republicans for the foreseeable future since it’s only Democrats who are passing this.

  • Fen says:

    Each party is being Stupid in their own way.

    1 Democrats
    Hillary Clinton did not “win” the popular vote. Because it wasn’t even on the table, the popular vote was not in play. IF the popular vote determined the winner then both campaigns would have had entirely different strategies and would hsve spent more time in states like California, Texas and New York.

    Likewise, voters would have turned out entirely different. More Democrats in dark red states like Texas would have voted for Hillary, more Republicans in dark blue states would have voted for Trump. So the popular vote total would be an entirely different number than it was.

    2. Republicans
    This demonstrates the failed Republican strategy of assuming Leftist states like California will self-destruct given enough time. Instead, the Democrats flee the sinking ship, escaping to places like Colorado, where they vote in the same idiotic notions that destroyed their home state to begin with. Marxists are like parasites that simply move on to a new host once they kill their current host. The GOP tactic of just letting them “die out” does not work.

  • Mark says:

    SCOTUS will probably knock this down on the one-man, one-vote principle. It’s been badly used, but it should apply here.

    Meanwhile, Trump’s judges keep getting confirmed. We’ll probably lose 12% to the Left, but we need to keep going on that front.

    • SDN says:

      It would also seem to deny the Constitutional clause guaranteeing “a republican form of government”. That means rule by representatives not mobocracy.

  • Zenman says:

    “Big man on campus” ha!

    More like “wokist feminist on campus”

  • C Saunders says:

    Unintended consequences….

    Imagine the howling rage if there’s a freakish future scenario where California pop vote goes to GOP – swamping every other state in the “Compact” (oh maybe a progressive vote split between Ind Howard Schultz and Socialist D nominee). The entire EC vote from “Compact” states would then be required by law to go to the GOP. Let them live with their rules.

    Schadenfreude

    • Alpheus says:

      That’s what bothers me about “We must change to the popular vote” battle cries. The people crying out want to win by changing the process. They never seem willing to ask themselves “What can we do to appeal to a greater number of people in a greater variety of States?”

      Every so often the rule-change comes back and bites them — like the time Massachusetts didn’t want Governor Mitt Romney (R) to appoint a replacement for the “Lion” of the Senate Ted Kennedy (D), so they changed to replacement by Special Election…only to have a Democrat governor preside over the election of a Republican to replace the “Lion”!

  • Seamus says:

    “Guess what? New York went for Hillary. So did Colorado. So therefore it went that the electoral votes cast went to Hillary. But a LOT of other less populated states had their votes go for Trump, which meant that electoral votes go for Trump. That is plainly outlined in our Constitution.”

    Actually, it’s not plainly outlined in our Constitution. The only thing that’s plainly outlined is that “[e]ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” That means that a state legislature may provide that its electors be chosen by statewide popular vote (as in most states), that they be chosen by the state legislature itself (as in several states early on, and in South Carolina up until 1860), that the state have two at-large electors chosen by statewide popular vote and the rest chosen by separate popular votes in each congressional district (as in Maine and (I think) Nebraska)–or that its electors be chosen by lot from the statewide voter list or (as Colorado had opted) that they be chosen according to the nationwide popular vote.

    (Of course, there are a lot of practical problems with Colorado’s plan. What, for example, if there’s a close election, as in 2000? Who will determine what the vote counts are in each state, for purposes of determining Colorado’s electoral vote? Will Colorado defer to the electoral officials in each state? Or will Colorado say that (for example) Florida’s electoral officials may appropriately determine how Florida’s electoral votes will be cast, but that Colorado has to make an independent judgment, in order to determine who its own electoral votes will be cast. In a really close election, that could mean insisting on Colorado-run recounts in all 50 states.

    Also, a push toward making the national popular vote determinative, while leaving all the details in the hands of the states, would be a powerful incentive for states like California and New York to lower their voting ages to 16–or heck, why not make it 14? That would pump up the number of Democratic votes and potentially make the difference in a close nationwide vote. (Of course, a lot of people will see that as a feature rather than a bug.)

  • Seabiscuit says:

    How about we just have the 3 most populated states allocate their electoral votes by the percentages of their own popular vote outcome? A real Democrat should love getting rid of the electoral college bullies.

  • Doug Loss says:

    As Kevin M and SDN said, the NPV violates the Constitution in at least two ways. First it is, by the admission of it’s creators, an interstate compact. Those are only legal if approved by Congress, which this hasn’t been. Therefore, prima facie unconstitutional. Second, Article IV, Section 4 guarantees each state a republican form of government. States are allowed to appoint presidential electors however they see fit. But if a state holds a state-wide popular election for said electors, and then refuses to abide by the results of that election and appoints electors who were rejected by the voters, it has by definition stepped outside the bounds of republican government. You can also make a serious claim that NPV violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

  • tim maguire says:

    Why are liberals always so impatient? California and New York very nearly already do decide Colorado’s electoral votes. They just need one or two more cycles to import enough people and they’re there.

  • Ken Hammond says:

    Let’s play this scenario out. The voters of state X vote overwhelmingly in favor of candidate A, but by this plan, the state’s electoral votes go to candidate B. Do you think the voters of that state would stand for that? What would be the consequences for the party that pushed this scheme?

  • Rick Caird says:

    The problem is that there is no restriction on how a state allocates its electoral vote. That is up to the legislature. It would be perfectly acceptable for the the state Senate to award the electoral votes based on a vote in the Senate without even holding a presidential election. I do wonder if it would be allowed to have the state vote for one candidate and then have the electoral votes go to a different candidate.

    But, what you are seeing is the damage that the people fleeing California and infecting other states can cause. Basically, what this law says is that California determines the electoral votes of Colorado.

  • 0ldhawker says:

    Oh how times have changed! When I moved west from NH in1980, the common refrain heard throughout the Rocky Mountain states was “Those Damn Easterners control everything in our state, even though they don’t know squat living here!” Now there’s Trump, and Coloradans (some of the biggest complainers) are handing their votes to the two coasts. Willingly. Gladly. They’ll regret it when a Dem wins the White House and they are shut out of BLM land.

  • JEFF says:

    Why bother to hold an national election in Colorado? Just let the rest of the country decide.

  • a bee ee? says:

    This has been floating around for at least ten years now, but its advocates overlook the fact that there is no constitutional provision for selection of presidential electors by popular vote in the first place. The Constitution says (Article II, Section 1):

    “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

    If this scheme is ultimately ratified by states accounting for a majority of the electoral college, it would be a good idea for some of the remaining states to end elector selection by popular vote in order to retain their sovereignty and put the screws to this idea.

  • Scott says:

    “The bottom line is that the US Constitution is a compact between sovereign states. Period. Full stop. End of discussion. Each state joined the compact with the explicit promise that it would have equal representation in one chamber of the Congress. That isn’t negotiable. No amount of legal mumbo-jumbo and disingenuous exegesis of precedent changes that. There is one peaceful way this compact changes: via Amendment or Convention.”
    –Streiff at RedState

  • TMLutas says:

    So how does this work? Does the electoral college slate of the national popular vote winner get seated in the electoral college (unconstitutional as it violates the republican form of government guarantee) or do the locals who won get seated but are forced to vote for the other major party candidate (unconstitutional because it violates the 1st amendment)?

    In any case, the fix is easy. The other slate should meet and vote in December as if this law did not exist, and submit the results to the Congress.

  • […] would any state want the rest of the country to determine its electoral votes? Why even have states (which the Left hates). Sadly, this insanity is probably Constitutional, but […]

  • scf says:

    No doubt the day would come when Colorodans vote 80% for one candidate and the electoral votes go the other candidate because the other won the national vote by 1%. So in effect, Colorodans electoral votes would be decided by outsiders.

  • Robert Arvanitis says:

    Not sure it matters.
    The GOOD party makes ITS electors pledge to vote the as Colorado votes.
    he state legislature cannot force those GOOD electors to be faithless.
    https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html
    (The legislature can have the vote by Congressional districts plus two (for senators). That may dilute the GOOD party’s electors.)

  • Carey Gage says:

    The bill will only be found to be unconstitutional if a Republican wins the popular vote.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram