Colorado Senate Passes Bill to Circumvent Electoral College

[terrehautian]

Colorado=New California.

 

[Ingomike]

As noted by Mongo, these people vote, drive cars, and run for office.

Because of their lack of understanding, they are opposed to allowing those who are not properly "vetted" to their standards to do things for themselves. For example, they don't believe you should be allowed to work on your own air conditioning, because it might be bad for the environment. Any kind of home improvement that involves structural building, electricity, or plumbing has to be inspected and approved. They don't understand and are fearful of firearms, and believe they should be limited to police and the government. It occurred to me long ago that these folks are not self-sufficient in any way, and they do not trust any one who want to "do it yourself," including providing for your own self-protection.

I recognize there are important reasons to license some things. I don't want my neighbor's septic system to expel untreated effluent, for example. But those people and I have a sharp difference of opinion as to where to put the line.

Well said. They do not trust themselves with a hammer or screwdriver, they certainly do not trust themselves with a gun, therefore, due to their lack of trust of even themselves, no one should have a gun. They also have an unfailing trust in beauracracies so get those approvals on your work.

MM

 

[Ingomike]

Colorado=New California.

Yes, and they vote in the failed policies that were the reason they left...

MM

 

[two70]

Colorado=New California.

Close, Colorado=California's new b****.

 

[Expat]

Yes, and they vote in the failed policies that were the reason they left...

MM

That’s okay, they have legal dope too...

 

[ziggy]

This is a mutual suicide pact for small states. They will be irrelevant in all presidential elections. Probably the same for most of the mid-population states. This proposal will also magnify the benefits of election fraud, i.e. things like dead people voting. We could see 10 million votes cast in Chicago alone. Hey, it is about stealing more than just one state but the whole USA, so pull out all the stops!

 

[BugI02]

There used to be a fairly robust distaste for people from Cali (and Texas) in Colorado, even in the suburbs of larger city's such as Golden, Arvada, Broadmoor even Manitou Springs. I can't imagine that has all changed, likely just gone underground. Denver only about 700K population. Include Boulder (Colorado's version of Austin) and you still only have a little over 800K out of Colorado's 5.6 mil - only about 1/7

It's hard to believe they have enough homegrown and imported 'woke' people to change that much in 20 years. Democrats took control of state senate (and already had control of the CO house) in 2018 elections, so I'm guessing it's the usual progressive movement in lockstep to bring about that hope and change they're so enamored of

Took a look, Colorado sent 4 of 7 democrats to the US House - seems like an even split. But those D's were elected in Districts 1, 6 , and 7 which are all metro Denver and District 2 which is mostly Boulder and its suburbs. So 6/7 of the population is represented in the House by less than half of the seats. There were no senators up for re-election to gauge statewide races, althgough they did elect a Democratic governor 53% to 43%. Only 2.5 million out of 5.6 million voted (~45%) so all is not lost yet. Colorado allows an enacted bill to be referred to the ballot for a veto referendum so it could be challenged that way

 

[MarkC]

Yes, and they vote in the failed policies that were the reason they left...

MM

That’s okay, they have legal dope too...

Eventually they will make much of Colorado utopias, much like crime-ridden Chicago or dirty, homeless overran San Francisco. Then they'll need the legal weed just to cope with what they've created.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Eventually they will make much of Colorado utopias, much like crime-ridden Chicago or dirty, homeless overran San Francisco. Then they'll need the legal weed just to cope with what they've created.

Yeah, nothing like tip-toeing through the turds and syringes to make ya wanna twist up a fatty...

 

[MarkC]

Yeah, nothing like tip-toeing through the turds and syringes to make ya wanna twist up a fatty...

"twist up a fatty..." Now that takes me back to a few years ago!

A couple of years ago I attended a conference in Denver for work. Although public smoking of the weed was illegal, walking through the downtown was much like hanging out on the backlot of a Cheech and Chong movie, clouds of smoke everywhere.

We actually had a presentation about legalization and its effects. By state law, an individual must be a resident of Colorado for at least six months before working in the marijuana industry. The goal was to prevent an influx of dopers. From what they said, it didn't work. They instead experienced a huge immigration of unemployed people. This was consistent with my experience of stepping over stoners racked out on the sidewalks on an early weeknight evening.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Actually, in a popular vote every individual vote counts.

Voting is a form of sampling. Not every person can or will vote, and we use the results of an election to represent something about the country.

You're right to say that in a popular vote, ever individual vote counts, but using states or districts and the Electoral College, every vote also counts, but the results give different information.

The real question is whether we want our President to be a reflection of what most of the country's citizens want, or what most of the defined districts, in which varying concentrations of people reside, want.

Both ways of sampling give you valid information. Neither way is more or less correct, valid, or moral in any way. It's just a question of which way you want it.

 

[Mongo59]

If the gov was serving the people like it was designed rather than insisting we all serve them this would all be a non-issue.

Our forefathers thought of political service in terms of "hardship" for the politician and his family. What is it now?

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

If the gov was serving the people like it was designed rather than insisting we all serve them this would all be a non-issue.

Our forefathers thought of political service in terms of "hardship" for the politician and his family. What is it now?

Hmmmm, what's a good word for the opposite of hardship?

 

[T.Lex]

Hmmmm, what's a good word for the opposite of hardship?

Softship.

 

[JettaKnight]

Softship.

Drink less whiskey on date night, my friend.

 

[T.Lex]

Drink less whiskey on date night, my friend.

Or a whole lot more.

 

[HoughMade]

Actually, in a popular vote every individual vote counts.

True. Doesn't mean it's wise, though.

 

[Ingomike]

True. Doesn't mean it's wise, though.

Correct. The trope about every vote not counting is tiring. The rules are as follows, vote in your states presidential election, your vote counts, that vote selects the slate of electors that will vote in the electoral college prescribed by the Constitution. Simple really, and every vote counts. The national vote counts are a media fiction, they mean nothing as that is not what the agreed rules are, and have been for over 200 years. There is an agreed way to change the rules, this workaround is not one of them. When the constitution was written the states were very competitive, the founders apparently never imagined that consortiums of states would band together to circumvent the constitution.

MM

 

[BugI02]

Yeah, nothing like tip-toeing through the turds and syringes to make ya wanna twist up a fatty...

San Francisco seems to be fast becoming a US Sao Paulo these days, complete with favelas and secure compounds for the elites

 

[T.Lex]

Correct. The trope about every vote not counting is tiring. The rules are as follows, vote in your states presidential election, your vote counts, that vote selects the slate of electors that will vote in the electoral college prescribed by the Constitution.

You left out part of the rule. The Constitution says that each state can decide how its electors get picked.

...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...