Image 01 Image 03

Colorado Gov Signing Away State’s Electoral College Vote in Favor of National Popular Vote – Eric Holder Cheers

Colorado Gov Signing Away State’s Electoral College Vote in Favor of National Popular Vote – Eric Holder Cheers

“The candidate who gets the most votes – nationally – is elected. Real democracy.”

After the 2016 election, desperate leftists tried to harass members of the Electoral College into not voting to confirm Trump as president. It was, as the same people like to say, a direct attack on our democracy.

Now, having realized that won’t work, the left is simply trying to do away with the body.

Reid Wilson reports at The Hill:

Colorado governor will sign bill aimed at bypassing Electoral College

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) will sign a measure to award his state’s electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, moving a countrywide coalition one step closer to circumventing the Electoral College.

In an interview Sunday, Polis called the Electoral College an “undemocratic relic” of the nation’s past, one he wants to see relegated to the dustbin of history.

“I’ve long supported electing the president by who gets the most votes,” Polis told The Hill. “It’s a way to move towards direct election of the president.”

Colorado will become the 12th state to join the national popular vote interstate compact. Those 12 states and the District of Columbia, which has also passed a popular-vote bill, account for 181 electoral votes, just under 90 shy of the 270 votes a presidential candidate needs to win the White House.

The compact will not go into effect until the coalition includes states that add up to 270 electoral votes or more. Once it does go into effect, states that are part of the coalition would award their electoral votes en masse to the candidate who wins the national popular vote.

Former United States Attorney General Eric Holder supports this idea because of course he does:

Right, because erasing your own state’s votes because somebody somewhere else voted differently is real democracy.

NPR deserves points for honesty with this headline. Sam Brasch writes:

After Stinging Presidential Loss, Popular Vote Movement Gains Momentum In States

An attempt at an Electoral College workaround is gaining momentum in the Mountain West.

Democrats in Colorado and New Mexico are pushing ahead with legislation to pledge their 14 collective electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote — no matter who wins each state.

The plan only goes into effect if the law passes in states representing an electoral majority. That threshold is 270 votes, which is the same number needed to win the presidency.

Democrats have been stung by the fact that President Trump’s victory marked the second time in five cycles that a Democrat lost the presidency while winning the popular vote. 2016 was the most egregious example, with Hillary Clinton winning 3 million more votes than Donald Trump, but losing the election. It was the largest margin ever for someone who won the popular vote, but lost the Electoral College.

Of course, this is the whole point of the Electoral College. It gives states an equal say and prevents heavily populated blue states like New York and California from deciding the outcome of every election.

That is precisely why the left wants this changed. When the rules don’t work in your favor, just change the rules.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


UnCivilServant | February 27, 2019 at 1:05 pm

All this does is remove the isolation of voter fraud in the corrupt states. Now the harvested ballots in CA can override whole states’ electorates beyond the crushing of their own people’s views.

    UnCivilServant in reply to UnCivilServant. | February 27, 2019 at 1:05 pm

    *now as in if the illegal compact ever takes effect.

    MattMusson in reply to UnCivilServant. | February 27, 2019 at 1:43 pm


    If a state allows fellons or even non-citizens to vote – they
    disenfranchise other Citizen voters.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to UnCivilServant. | February 28, 2019 at 5:29 pm

    That would be the CON JOB Felons would plan.

    “Real democracy.” “Real democracy.” “Real democracy.”

    Real democracy is a rainbow colored Farting Unicorn!

    It does not exist and never will! It did not even Exist in Ancient Greece where the “theory” was thought up!

How is this even Constitutional?

This changes how elections for POTUS work. Even if they are waiting for enough states to get 270 electoral votes this should be brought up in court.

    That of course is the question that will be asked.

    What’s to be examined here is how this state statute affects the very structure of the Constitution. It would appear that the EC is being rendered asunder. If true, such a statute can not stand.

    A straight reading of Article VI’s Supremacy Clause seems to give the answer. “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . .”

    What’s key, IMO, is the use of the phrase “This Constitution,” meaning of course the written one appearing before the reader. The styling of that phrase is essential to a proper understanding of the Constitution.

    When we want to make a particularized choice, we use the definite articles – the, this, that, these, those. “I want that cupcake, the one with the greatest number of sprinkles.” “I want the Presidential Suite at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel.” When we do that, we tell the world that we won’t be satisfied with something which is merely fungible. “I’ll have a cupcake” or “I’ll take any room available” will get you that.

    The two-word phrase “this Constitution” is used 12 times in the 1787 document. Examples, (1) in the Preamble, “We the people of the United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution;” (2) in Article VI quoted above.

    The count is 15 if Washington’s letter of transmittal to the then Congress (that congress existing under the 1777 Articles of Confederation) is included. That letter can be found at,

    (found right after the 1787 document itself, but just before the amendments)

    The use of the definite article “this” is direct evidence that it was the black-and-white written text which the reader held in his/her hands that was the Constitution, with the words therein understood to mean what they meant at that moment in time, namely, in 1787. The convention in short had made a particularized choice.

    The convention used the “this Constitution” phrase to focus the reader’s attention on the precise written words appearing before the reader’s eyes. That is, its meaning was framed by the meaning of those words as they were then commonly understood. Those words were then the sole source, the origin as it were, for what the Framers intended.

    ecreegan in reply to TheOldZombie. | February 27, 2019 at 3:20 pm

    The constitution says that the legislature of each state selects the means of choosing electors. It also says that the interstate compacts are prohibited without pre-authorization from congress, and that the federal government shall guarantee to each state a representative form of government.

    I think this is an unconstitutional through being a compact without consent of congress, and that triggering upon reaching 270 electoral votes is plenty to make it a compact without specifying the states that have to agree.

    Eastwood Ravine in reply to TheOldZombie. | February 27, 2019 at 11:40 pm

    It’s certainly setting up a constitutional crisis when the compact gets to 270 electoral votes, and when the next presidential election that renders a split decision between the popular vote and the electoral vote.

    That’ll be fun. That’s when the next civil war starts.

Why would any State give up that extraordinary protection against 4 States controlling the entire national vote?

    Ironman in reply to puhiawa. | February 27, 2019 at 1:24 pm

    Because they stupidly believe it will always go their way. I guarantee you, if the circumstances were reversed they would be the biggest defenders of the Electoral College. Remember in Massachusetts Democrats changed the law for filling Senate vacancies to prevent Romney from replacing a Dem Senator with a Republican Senator. A couple of years later, when circumstances changed, Democrats threw out that law to go back to the old law because it now benefitted Democrats. Democrats have no principals other than gaining power.

Ok, this starting to worry me.

    Edward in reply to Concise. | February 27, 2019 at 10:57 pm

    It should worry you. A lot!

    If the Socialist-Democrats haven’t worried you previously, you haven’t been paying attention. But it isn’t too late to be concerned and resolve to do all you can to avoid the fate which those same Socialist-Democrats wish to impose on the rest of us.

What’s the Vegas over/under on the length of time it would take them to declare their own law unconstitutional if Trump won the national popular vote but lost the electoral college?

Of course Holder is celebrating. Venezuela’s wanna be president Holder is like any other corrupt crony-communist demagogue.

Now, Eric: go pick your nose.,+picking+nose&client=firefox-b-1-d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVib_RxNzgAhXrN30KHZJbBVAQ_AUIDygC&biw=1280&bih=860#imgrc=jLHvAi76SjgGcM:

The end of the electoral college is the end of our Republic: seccession would occur immediately.

The left has nothing but lies and violence, so this the end game.

Minority rights are only rights if they only apply to The Party. That old dry document called the Constitution stood in their way. The premise is one party rule which is progressing toward that end. Wait until the prog prols finally get what they voted for.

    guyjones in reply to alaskabob. | February 27, 2019 at 1:40 pm

    One-Party rule, indeed. And, achieving such a noble goal is a step-by-step process. Open borders and toothless/non-existent federal immigration procedures/enforcement is part of the game plan.

The constitution requires that all states have a Republican form of government. Denying citizens their votes for any reason at all, fails this constitutional requirement.

The deep-state, however, is not likely to challenge this movement until it has already achieved power and destroyed the courts.

My point about the electoral college has always been “We select a potus. We do not elect one.” We are not a pure democracy (read: mob rule). That is by design and that is good.

The electors in each state are typically comprised of the party faithful – not yer average party hardy guy.

The faithful of all parties volunteer, raise money, man the phones, knock on doors, go to convention – and solemnly pledge to cast their electoral vote for their party’s candidate – not the national popular fave regardless of party.

This whole ‘abolish the college’ scheme shows a fundamental ignorance about how the electoral college works along party lines. It also reeks of voter fraud, and I smell a lawsuit brewing.

    The ignorance is on the part of the citizens, not the promoters and true believers in this scam to turn the country to one Party rule established primarily by CA,NY,Chicago and other large Socialist-Democrat run cities. And who in their right mind would want to move back to those cities and states in order to turn this back around? The time to fight is now with the soap box and ballot box to prevent your spineless politicians from jumping on this bandwagon. Doing so now will prevent the need to resort to the third “box” of the proverbial triumvirate – the bullet box – for this particular reason (there will eventually be others, I’m sure long after I’m gone).

The situation will be reversed. Trump is one of the few who can get a popular majority.

    Bucky Barkingham in reply to Petrushka. | February 27, 2019 at 3:39 pm

    Wouldn’t it be sweet if in 2020 Trump won the majority of the popular vote? Under the Interstate Compact California would have to deliver all of its EC electors to Trump. If that actually did happen you would see Blue states dropping the Interstate Compact like a hot potato.

I echo TheOldZombie: how is this constitutional? Don’t the states have to first overturn the 12th Amendment?

How are they getting away with this?

Lawyers? Help?

Holder — the vile, embittered, racist demagogue, who, as U.S. Attorney General, believed that the nation’s civil rights laws should be enforced according to an evaluation of the skin pigmentation of the offenders and victims (see, Black Panther Voter Intimidation) — would support a manifestly idiotic conceit such as the elimination of the Electoral College.

Indeed, why allow the residents of 43 states to vote for President, at all? We can simply institute an election process whereby only the votes of the allegedly enlightened, self-congratulatory and self-aggrandizing Leftists of California, Illinois, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Connecticut, will be counted.

Why would people in Colorado even bother to vote?

    TrickyRicky in reply to TX-rifraph. | February 27, 2019 at 5:10 pm

    I posed that question to Gov. Polis in an email. There has been no reply, except that he is going to sign this abomination, so shut up citizen!

    As someone who has lived my whole life, aside from a few years here and there, in Colorado I weep for my state. It’s bad enough that we are being overrun by assholes from California and New York, who have brought their lousy attitudes and manners with them. The highways are clogged, the mountains and ski areas are way over capacity, and they obviously brought their retarded liberal voting habits with them as well. Hell’s bells!

The second (if it ever happens) that states equal to 270 ratify this nonsense the suits will fly stating (correctly) that it is unconstitutional on multiple counts. It by the admission of its supporters is a compact between states which in the compacts clause is not permitted without congressional approval. And Congress actually cannot approve it because it has the effect of altering how the president is elected, which requires a constitutional amendment. I’m not even getting into the whole problem of states voting their electors according to something other than how their states vote, which raises disenfranchisement questions.

    Owego in reply to Joelist. | February 28, 2019 at 1:31 am

    I most sincerely hope you’re correct. This piece of chicanery is right up there with motor voter, mail in ballots, and legitimizing as many voters as possible who would otherwise be ineligible. It stinks to high heaven. To say that the thought of folks the likes of who run California, New York, and Illinois, Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago running the country is depressing is a gross understatement. To me the compact here seems more a pledge among a collection of shifty pol pals than anything else and a pretty slim reed to bet the outcome of a national election on. I pray that you are right.

Good luck with this plan…The “compact” is on pretty shaky ground.

The representative aspects of the constitution was the only way the colonies could agree to join the union. Take that away and states WILL start to leave the union.

Isn’t it very simple? A “real democracy” by this definition requires the abolition of the states, turning them into provinces like in most countries of the world with powerful central governments. Fine if that’s how you want it, but not a very American-sounding solution.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to JBourque. | February 28, 2019 at 1:34 pm

    Lincoln – a Republican – got that ball rolling 160 years ago. It’s been gathering speed ever since.

Okay, a little help please, and before I ask, I think this is a terrible idea. Nevertheless, here are two quotes from the article…

“Colorado will become the 12th state to join the national popular vote interstate compact. Those 12 states and the District of Columbia, which has also passed a popular-vote bill, account for 181 electoral votes, just under 90 shy of the 270 votes a presidential candidate needs to win the White House.” (The Hill) and,

“The plan only goes into effect if the law passes in states representing an electoral majority. That threshold is 270 votes, which is the same number needed to win the presidency.” (NPR, Sam Brasch)

Arithmetic and quotes from questionable authorities aside, are we saying that a state can enact a law that, in concert with similar laws in other states, can override the electoral college? Just asking.

    IMHO, ask first whether the laws can override their own state constitutions guaranteeing the franchise to adults, and of course further amended to extend it to women. Allowing people to vote and then making sure their votes have no value seems dubious.

    counsel in reply to Owego. | February 27, 2019 at 2:47 pm

    Interstate compacts are regulated by Congress. States cannot enter into this type of compact without some sort of Congressional grant.

    While the choosing of electors is a plenary power of the State Legislature that choice is still guided by the US Constitution. These actions effectively empower out of State Voters to choose the Electors for of a “foreign” State. I am not sure that methodology will survive genuine (as opposed to politicized) Constitutional scrutiny. It is possible that a Republican would win Colorado, yet its electors would go to a Democrat because of California.

      Owego in reply to counsel. | February 27, 2019 at 4:57 pm

      Somehow, your last sentence is telling and worrisome because it’s the point of the whole exercise. I suppose “compact” carries a legal definition with permissions and constraints all its own, but it seems here to imply little more than a political goal deemed worthy by a collection of state governors and attorneys general who intend to return to their home states and get it done. So, my question is still on the table,i.e. if a sufficient number of these guys are successful in states representing more than 270 votes collectively (apparently they’re 90 short, now), does the electoral college become nothing more than a rubber stamp? the country is run by New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, and a dozen lesser s**t holes?

      Suppose they do, the election is held, their electors vote as ‘directed’ according to their new state laws, “their” candidate ‘wins,’ but the outcome would have been otherwise had they voted under the old laws; the outcome is challenged in the courts? What does the country do while the question works its way through the courts?

      The notion that the entire electoral college process can be wiped out by a collection of lousy pols from the likes of California and New York is frightening (a word I hate using because it’s tossed around far too loosely, anymore) but this will kill this country – finish it – if it is permitted.

        counsel in reply to Owego. | February 28, 2019 at 12:59 pm

        Congress Counts the electoral votes. In recent years this has been a mere ministerial function, but it need not be. Congress is free to reject electoral votes as irregular. At that point the House would choose the President assuming no one had a majority. There is no room for judicial review of Congress.

        The Constitution does not provide for the States to “pool” their electoral votes.

    Edward in reply to Owego. | February 27, 2019 at 11:17 pm

    It isn’t “overriding” the Electoral College. It would require each of the signatory states to appoint their Electors pledged to vote for whomever wins the majority of the popular vote of the entire country, the votes of any particular state notwithstanding. So yes*, if a Republican won CO (or any other state which is a signatory) and the expected result of this is the Socialist-Democrat wins at least one popular vote more** than the Republican, all the then current Electors (now 14) of CO would be chosen to pledge CO’s College votes to the Socialist-Democrat.

    * If this goes into effect and survives a court challenge all the way to the SCOTUS

    ** Can you imagine the court cat-fights which would happen as each state sees lawsuits filed over every last ballot? The process would grind to a halt.

So, if this ever took effect, would that give Colorado voters standing to sue for voter fraud in other states?

But isn’t that unconstitutional?

Who is tabulating the “National Popular Vote”? There is no such thing. Felons can vote in some states but not others. In some states you have to prove who you are to vote and in others you don’t. Some crazy state was thinking about lowering the voting age to 16. It just is not true that votes are exchangeable between the states.

Suppose a state wanted to use a system like Australia does with preference voting to award their electoral votes. How do those votes count in the National Popular Count and who decides this?

Suppose my state awards each voter 10,000,000 votes to allocate among the candidates as each voter wishes. Put that in your National Popular Vote total.

    “Who is tabulating the “National Popular Vote”?” For each state the Secretary of State would tabulate and report the state’s total (eventually). While initially the MSM would report the totals, after all 50 lawsuits were finished either the Electoral College system or, more likely, the Federal Election Commission, would total the national vote.

    That’s enough of a problem to consider this late in the day. I’ll leave the rest of your questions (rhetorical?) to others.

We don’t have a democracy for good and pragmatic cause, including, but not limited to, the 50 state laboratories that optimize governance, and mitigate the risk of progressive, catastrophic divergence.

What most states do is allot the votes of their electors based upon the popular vote of residents of that state. Now, the state can set up any system that they want, to govern how their electors vote. But, the aforementioned method guarantees that the wishes of the residents of the state are protected. Under the model where the national vote govern allotment of the electors votes for President, deprives the state’s residents of their voice in the process.

Holder has been very busy behind the scenes.

RIP our Constitutional Republic. This is just sad.

Subotai Bahadur | February 27, 2019 at 4:43 pm

If the Constitutional provisions for electing a president can be cancelled by the Left at will, then we can assume that the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution no longer apply either. Which voids any obligation to obey the government.

Subotai Bahadur

You have to keep in mind that these are Demorats and they will seek to return to the old electoral college if their future candidate failed to get the popular vote again. They do this without shame or regret. They are like zombies who are basically dead inside and march to a single need. Power. Newborns lives don’t matter. Our country’s sovereignty does not matter. Our military does not matter. Destroying nuclear families does not matter. Only power and the ability to tell us how to live our lives matters.

    Eastwood Ravine in reply to inspectorudy. | February 27, 2019 at 11:23 pm

    Exactly. The compact is a partisan work around. Most of the States in the compact are safe-Democrat or lean-Democrat States. In the event the reverse happened, that a Republican carried the popular vote and the Democrat the majority of the electoral college, safe-Democrat States would never cast their vote for the Republican.

Hard to believe a state would potentially nullify the results of their citizens’ votes in this way. How foolish and short sighted.

Have a banana, Holder – to match the ‘republic’ you and your sinister likes dream of.

You will never again have the power you once had in this country.

Seems to me this would disenfranchise all the voters in a state to suddenly have their state’s electoral votes switched.

If Colorado gives up its electoral college votes to the popular vote, it would no longer be able to disagree with 8-10 metropolitan area votes, let alone try to go head-to-head against the voting wishes of other states. Democrats know that the large blue metro areas own the popular vote and they’re pushing the lesser populated states to go along with this scheme.

Wait until an issue affecting small states goes against small states and an A.O.C. is elected by the big states. Colorado and associates will quickly learn wisdom of our Founding Fathers.