Rhododendrites via Wikimedia Commons

Colorado passed a measure to award the state’s Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. 

State resident’s 52% vote to pass Proposition 113 confirmed lawmaker’s 2019 decision to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, along with 15 other states including California, Illinois, New York, and Oregon.

The Compact promises to ensure “every vote, in every state” matters and aims to guarantee the presidency will be awarded to “the candidate who receives the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia.”

Currently, the National Popular Vote has not gone into effect. The bill will be enacted when it is adopted by enough states to possess the majority of electoral votes required to elect a president. The addition of Colorado’s nine electoral votes brought Proposition 113’s count up to 196 of the 270 votes necessary to trigger a shift in national policy.

Proponents claim the proposition makes voting less complicated. “The national popular vote is a very straightforward concept,” Democratic state senator Michael Foote said. “One person should always equal one vote, and the presidential candidate who gets the most votes should win the election.”

But critics argue that the change in electoral structure will dilute Colorado’s voting strength against the more densely populated states like California, and suggests cities like L.A. would garner more candidate focus during campaigning. 

Former Colorado House Speaker Frank McNulty (R), thinks residents who voted to pass the bill were manipulated by aggressive California campaign donors. “They were tricked by California billionaires, who spent millions of dollars to buy our votes for president.”

“Colorado’s votes should be decided by Coloradans,” worried the anti-Prop 113 adviser. “This is going to reduce Colorado’s clout, and itʼs going to reduce our influence on issues like transportation, water, health care and funding for our military bases.”

Had the National Popular Vote been in effect during the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton would have won the U.S. presidency over Donald Trump.


Subscribe
Notify of
guest
49 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Crystal F
Crystal F
10 days ago

So they just gave themselves a legal out to cheat some more and ignore the Electoral College? Anybody who’s got the money can buy the Popular vote, that’s why we have the EC!

AD Roberts
AD Roberts
9 days ago
Reply to  Crystal F

Legal????? Sorry, but it is NOT legal. They cannot just make laws that negate the Constitution. Oh, that is right. They have been doing it for centuries to destroy the 2ND AMENDMENT.

Donald Rifas
Donald Rifas
6 days ago
Reply to  AD Roberts

What about Trump wanting to replace electors for those who would vote for him

Rich
Rich
6 days ago
Reply to  Donald Rifas

The states can legally do this if they so choose.

MJB
MJB
6 days ago
Reply to  Rich

Actually, no they cannot… This is a violation of the Constitution. The Constitution is clear.

Recce1
Recce1
6 days ago
Reply to  MJB

The SCOTUS has upheld States’ Faithless Electors laws which state that a State can replace or punish Electors who don’t vote for the candidates they’re pledged to. Please see SCOTUS Decision Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 US___(2020).

Paul
Paul
5 days ago
Reply to  MJB

Right But I think Trump won the popular vote anyway because the left demos cheated on that too. That means if colorado voted that way and it was legal then Trump won in their state. Trump 2021-2024

SidS
SidS
6 days ago
Reply to  Donald Rifas

Hillary tried that in ‘16. Failed!

Recce1
Recce1
6 days ago
Reply to  Donald Rifas

Are you implying that Pres. Trump wanted to replace winning electors pledged to Biden? HOWEVER, what Pres. Trump wanted was for winning electors pledged to him to vote for him or be replaced per many States’ Faithless elector laws.

Per the Constitution, that was up to the States, not the President. In Chiafalo v. Washington 591 US___2020 the US Supreme Court upheld the States’ Faithless elector laws.

Recce1
Recce1
6 days ago
Reply to  AD Roberts

That’s a very good point. Many legal scholars say the Compact is unconstitutional. For a good article on that see https://i2i.org/why-the-national-public-vote-scheme-is-unconstitutional/.

john
john
10 days ago

unconstitutional. If you want to change the US Constitution there is a method to do that. This is not it.

john
john
10 days ago

If you look at the many many counties which routinely aroe shut out of electoral process then you would KNOW the correct thing to do is inact electoral votes statewide – so those who live in areas that receive state & federal subsidies – city folk – cannot use their power to take the assets of country folk – just because they can – as they do now.

AD Roberts
AD Roberts
9 days ago
Reply to  john

How long will it be before there is a revolution? The conservative patriots have the guns. What we do not have is control of the BUREAUCRATS who act like the BROWN SHIRTS of Hitler’s Germany. Yes, our government employees will come and take your guns. They are willing to DIE in order to do that. God help us.

markypolo
markypolo
6 days ago
Reply to  AD Roberts

When they come for the guns. Millions will die, but the left will always remain ignorant as long someone else is feeding them.

SidS
SidS
6 days ago
Reply to  AD Roberts

Not exactly. What they will do and have stated so is join the U.N. small arms treaty, ostensibly the end “terrorism”, but the effect would be to allow the light blue helmets to come in and confiscate our weapons claiming the U.N. Has “superior authority” over our Constitution.

Recce1
Recce1
6 days ago
Reply to  SidS

Thank you. You’re correct in what the progressives will claim as they take an eisegetical view to interpreting the Constitution. This is a real danger with the Biden/Harris socialist Democrat Party coming to power. Thankfully an exegetical interpretation of the Constitution leads to a different conclusion.

Many, not all, constitutional scholars hold to the view that a treaty MUST be in “pursuance thereof”. That means they must comply with or be in accordance with the principles stated in the Constitution. Otherwise, treaties could wreck havoc and end republican (small r) governance.

Thus, for a glaring example for progressives, the UN Small Arms Treaty could not void the 2nd Amendment. Likewise, for extreme conservatives, the 1st Amendment could not be overridden so as to exclude the practice of Islam in the US. Sadly, and ominously, both ideas are pushed by those on the extreme edges of our political realms. That’s why an adherence to the letter of the Constitution is so critical to the survival of the Republic.

Recce1
Recce1
6 days ago
Reply to  john

Two States, Maine and Nebraska do that.