Proposition 113: Replace The Electoral College With Popular Vote

27 Sep 2020 10:57 #1 by FredHayek
I hate this measure!!!!
If 99% of Coloradoans voted for Candidate A, but Candidate B won the national popular vote, Colorado's electoral votes would go to Candidate B.

This is a bad idea. And please note, most of the money supporting this measure comes from California, the most populous state in the country. I dislike this measure so much, I might even donate to the people who oppose it.

Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

13 Oct 2020 17:44 #2 by ScienceChic
This article intrigued me, I'm still pondering what problem I could be missing? Is it because it's not really one person, one vote, but all votes by electors in a state for the national popular vote winner? Or am I not understanding how votes would be tallied?

I hadn't thought about how, in most states, since the presidential race is pretty much already determined based on demographics, it makes the down ballot races less competitive and encourages money raised in the state to be spent elsewhere. I also could totally see how other measures are put on the ballot simply to push emotional buttons and keep voters from staying home in an effort to counteract that apathy.

Krieger: A lonely Colorado conservative makes the case for one person, one vote
Dave Krieger, Special to The Colorado Sun | September 27, 2020

The loneliest job in Colorado politics this year is trying to convince Republican voters to support Prop 113, which has fallen to a self-described conservative activist from Michigan named Dennis Lennox.

“I’m a conservative first and a Republican second,” Lennox told me. “As a conservative, one person, one vote is a foundational principle. It doesn’t matter what state you live in, doesn’t matter what county you live in, doesn’t matter your gender, doesn’t matter your race, your ethnicity, national origin. One person, one vote.”

Lennox is nothing if not energetic. He has been barnstorming across Colorado for Prop 113 since January and estimates he’s addressed some sort of conservative gathering — a town hall forum, Republican county meeting, chamber of commerce social — in 45 of Colorado’s 64 counties.

Lennox believes many Republicans are arguing against their own future interests by rejecting a national popular vote.

“In Arizona, when this bill was introduced 10 years ago, two-thirds of the Republicans in the legislature supported it,” Lennox said. “In my home state of Michigan, almost every Republican supported it, including the Republican Speaker of the House. The compact has passed on a bipartisan basis elsewhere. In many states, more Republicans support it than Democrats do.”

Amid the madness of 2020, it’s easy for an idealistic effort to reinvigorate our democracy to get lost. If you believe in the principle of one person, one vote, and it seems ridiculous to you that a Floridian’s vote matters way more than yours in the selection of the next president, Prop 113 deserves your support.


"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

13 Oct 2020 18:51 #3 by Rick
I think it's safe to say that if the blue states were actually red and the red were blue, Democrats would be against the popular vote. Using your political logic, please tell me why I'm wrong.

You could use this same logic when it comes to ending the filibuster and taking power from the minority as well as packing the supreme court... two things the Democrats would love to do if they get the power to do so.

It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy

George Orwell

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

14 Oct 2020 08:47 #4 by FredHayek
Colorado is a blue state and I am fine knowing my vote for Jojo is essentially wasted. I love state's rights and local control. And a national popular vote is just another way to make Colorado less relevant.

Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
The following user(s) said Thank You: ADVMortgage

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

14 Oct 2020 14:14 #5 by koobookie
One of the arguments made for the electoral college is that less populated states won't receive attention from candidates. Tell, me how many times have the candidates visited Montana, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota? These states are pretty much given for one side.

The electoral college must go. One person, One vote. Why does the vote of a person in Montana have more weight than a voter in Texas?

Prop 113 is a way to nullify the ancient electoral college.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

14 Oct 2020 15:20 #6 by Pony Soldier
Actually it is a way to nullify your vote.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

14 Oct 2020 16:53 #7 by ramage
The Electoral College is an integral part of the United States Constitution. If you prefer a national popular vote then get your representatives to amend the U.S. Constitution.

This straw argument could only be offered by you:
One of the arguments made for the electoral college is that less populated states won't receive attention from candidates. Tell, me how many times have the candidates visited Montana, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota? These states are pretty much given for one side.

How much attention is given to New York, California, Massachusetts, etc. by the "candidates"?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

15 Oct 2020 08:10 #8 by koobookie

Pony Soldier wrote: Actually it is a way to nullify your vote.


Actually, the EC is a way to keep people from voting. How many Dems in Texas don't vote because they know their state is going red? How many R's in California don't vote because they know their state is going blue?

If we want more people involved in voting, then we should eliminate the EC in favor of a popular vote winner. If people think their vote counts, they will vote.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

15 Oct 2020 08:13 #9 by koobookie

ramage wrote: The Electoral College is an integral part of the United States Constitution. If you prefer a national popular vote then get your representatives to amend the U.S. Constitution.

This straw argument could only be offered by you:
One of the arguments made for the electoral college is that less populated states won't receive attention from candidates. Tell, me how many times have the candidates visited Montana, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota? These states are pretty much given for one side.

How much attention is given to New York, California, Massachusetts, etc. by the "candidates"?


That just supports my argument. Solid partisan states don't get attention from candidates. If a candidate knows the state will go to the other party, they will ignore it. If the EC was gone, they would give more states attention to attract whatever votes they could find.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

15 Oct 2020 08:18 #10 by ramage
Nonsense. The candidates would go to the population centers to campaign. The less populated states would be further marginalized. The United States is a republic, a representative democracy, not a popular vote democracy.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.169 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum
sponsors
© My Mountain Town (new)
Google+