Bill to move Colorado to a National Popular Vote state passes Senate committee

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Jennifer Kovaleski - Denver 7 News




DENVER -- 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.

States in the compact agree to award all their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, no matter which presidential candidate wins in their state. But there's a trick. It only goes into effect when enough states representing 270 electoral votes sign on, which is the number of votes a candidate needs to win the presidency.

So far, 12 states with a total of 172 electoral votes have already joined the compact. Colorado would bring nine more, so 89 more electoral votes would be needed if the Colorado proposal passes and is signed by Gov. Jared Polis.

Sponsor of bill wants to make every vote count

Foote views the existing winner-take-all system, which awards all of Colorado's nine electoral votes to the popular-vote winner in the state, as anti-democratic.

"Those that vote for the candidate who didn't receive the majority of votes in that state are not heard," he said.

Foote said this is about making sure every vote counts and every voice is heard, not only those in the 12 battleground states.

"The other 38 states are completely ignored by presidential campaigns," said Foote. "Our president should be elected because the president appeals to the majority of the voters here in the United States. Not just the majority of voters in the 12 battle ground states.”

2016 election, many argue, is behind push away from Electoral College

Hillary Clinton won the 2016 presidential popular vote by nearly 3 million votes but lost because Donald Trump won in the Electoral College system.

Two decades ago, Democrat Al Gore saw the same fate. In both recent cases the loser was a Democrat, which has led some to question if the Colorado proposal stems from nothing more than partisan sour grapes.

Foote says that's not the case.

"It's not just about the last election, let's be clear about that. The idea of the national popular vote has been around for a long time," he said. "It's been a bipartisan idea for a long time and perhaps the emotions from 2016 are still a little too raw."

Foote also points out that Republicans came very close to having the same outcome during the 2004 presidential election.

"John Kerry lost the national popular vote by over 3 million, but if he would have flipped just 60,000 votes in Ohio, he would have been the president," explained Foote.

Republican lawmaker is a defender of the electoral college

"I think it takes away the ability for Colorado to be a player in the national election," said Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling.

Sonnenberg believes our forefathers were brilliant and that the Electoral College protects the interests of smaller states, which he says should not be overrun by states with much larger populations.

"When you have a little bit of extra power, why would you cede that to New York or California or the rest of the country?" he said.

Sonnenberg said he thinks turning into a national popular vote state will take away Colorado's ability to be relevant in any future presidential elections.

"Colorado probably wouldn't be a player. We wouldn't see presidential candidates come to Colorado," he said.

States have adopted other alternatives

There are alternatives that don't involve abandoning parts of the Electoral College. All states could adopt what now exists in Maine and Nebraska, where all but two electoral votes are chosen by congressional district. The other two go to the statewide winner.

So, what is the right thing for our democracy?

The answer to that question is clearly a matter of perspective, but there seems to be momentum at the Capitol for Colorado to move to a national popular vote state – with new Secretary of State Jena Griswold backing the measure earlier this week.

Foote's bill passed out of State, Veterans, & Military Affairs committee Wednesday and is now slated to be debated in the full Senate on Monday.

[RBP]

The lack of historic context to any discussion is scary.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Even though the proponent in the article claims it has nothing to do with Trump's election in 2016, he's a fucking liar. This has EVERYTHING to do with that. And these morons have no idea what kind of power they are ceding to the 3 or 4 most populous states in the country for the presidential election. They're trying to say right now that their votes don't count? If this passes, then your vote REALLY won't count when NYC, LA, San Francisco, and Chicago alone could swing every single presidential election.

[RBP]

Relax, Lance. What's the worst that could happen?

[Pony]

If this passes, then your vote REALLY won't count when NYC, LA, San Francisco, and Chicago alone could swing every single presidential election.

Yep, 90% of the country (geographically speaking) would effectively have their votes nullified.

Life in the city is way different than life in the rural areas, with denser population comes many problems that need to be addressed in those areas. Do we really need to extend those regulations to the rest of the country where they are nowhere near relevant? The benefits of the current system are that people living in places with a lower population density still have a voice. It needs to stay that way.

Sorry to bring up a touchy subject but guns are a good example in this case. Should big, densely populated cities where gun crime and murder are high have stricter local regulations on them? IMO, yes. Rural areas where there are few police, lower crime rates and the people are way more self-sufficient do not need to be regulated because of problems in the "big city" that don't exist in most of the country. Giving all the power to a few most densely populated areas is just wrong.

[deebakes]

wow

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Thats idiotic, but its also idiotic that the holders of the electoral vote can give it to whomever they want regardless of how the state votes

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Thats idiotic, but its also idiotic that the holders of the electoral vote can give it to whomever they want regardless of how the state votes

You make that sound like it's a common occurrence. The only time that it happened AND changed an election was 1796. Most of the time it's one moron doing it in some kind of protest. And several times the people that became faithless electors had their votes invalidated and the replacement vote was cast for the actual winner of the state.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

You make that sound like it's a common occurrence. The only time that it happened AND changed an election was 1796. Most of the time it's one moron doing it in some kind of protest. And several times the people that became faithless electors had their votes invalidated and the replacement vote was cast for the actual winner of the state.

Fair enough, but the fact its an option is a problem for me

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Fair enough, but the fact its an option is a problem for me

I'd rather deal with that rare option then giving control of who decides the presidency to a few large cities full of liberals/socialists.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

agreed

[Teh One Who Knocks]

The only 'adjustment' I could see making to the electoral college would be, award the electoral votes of each state proportionally based on the popular vote of each state. But of course the democrats don't want something like that because they know they automatically start with an 84/270 (31%) head start in every election because New York and California are always going to go for the democrats. And with that kind of lead, they're still whining about losing the 2016 election. So instead, basically what they want to do is increase that head start by doing away with the electoral college because they know that nearly every large city votes democrat and all they need is a handful of those cities and they will always win the election.