A friend of mine wrote this and it was published in the mountain Democrat, oldest existing news paper in the West


California Pledges all 55 Electoral Votes to the Winner of the "NATIONAL" Popular Vote

I am sharing the following information because not many people seem to be aware of it.

On August 8, 2011 Governor Brown signed into law AB 459 which joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), which seeks to replace the current Electoral College with rules that would guarantee the election of the winner of the "national" popular vote.

This California law was never put on a ballot for a vote. Under the legislation, California would award all 55 Electoral College votes to the winner of the "national" popular vote. This will only happen if enough States join the NPVIC to represent a total of 270 electoral votes, the minimum needed to elect a president.

States that join the NPVIC will continue to award their electoral votes based on the current system until there are enough States to represent a controlling majority of the Electoral College (270 electoral votes).
After that point, all the member States electoral votes would be cast for the winner of the "national" popular vote.

NPVIC is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, that gives each State legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. Currently, 48 states have a winner-take-all system in which all State electoral votes go to the candidate who wins the most votes in the State.

Maine and Nebraska use an alternative method of distributing their electoral votes – the so-called Congressional District Method.
NPVIC has been enacted by 16 jurisdictions possessing 196 total electoral votes, which includes 4 small States (DE, HI, RI, VT), 8 medium-sized States (CO, CT, MD, MA, NJ, NM, OR, WA), 3 big States (CA, IL, NY), and the District of Columbia.

However, the jurisdiction of Colorado was recently suspended from the NPVIC until the November 3rd election. Citizens of Colorado filed a veto referendum against the legislation and collected signatures for the law to appear on the ballot.
The veto referendum was certified, and Colorado's Proposition 113 allows the voters to decide whether they want to join NPVIC.

If Colorado votes NO, they will be removed from the NPVIC and it will go back to 15 jurisdictions possessing 187 total electoral votes. Depending on the outcome of the Colorado election, NPVIC will still need either 74 or 83 additional electoral votes from States to be enacted.
The Electoral College protects small and rural States whose voters could be ignored if the country moves to a "national" popular vote, in which candidates target States with large populations and urban areas.

All jurisdictions that have joined the NPVIC are "Blue States," wanting to circumvent the Electoral College.
NPVIC abandons the Federalist structure of the Electoral College because the popular vote would determine the outcome rather than the votes of individual States.

The NPVIC discounts the Electoral College bypassing the intention of the Founding Fathers original Constitution and the Framers of the
Twelfth Amendment, which reformed the Electoral College in 1804. The Constitution clearly specifies that electoral votes will be cast by the States, as States, rather than by the States as a collective entity.

Regardless of all this information I pray for justice, which would be President Donald J. Trump winning the California and "national" popular vote leaving no doubt that "We the People" want a Republic and will not accept a Socialistic/Communistic government agenda.

Mike Thomas
Placerville, CA

I've seen this trend starting across the country and I agree with the sentiment that it is circumventing the purpose for the electoral college. Unfortunately Colorado has decided that it wishes to be a part of this movement and sacrifice it's vote to that of the coastal cities and other population centers. While I am skeptical whether or not the movement will reach their 270 requirement, although I could see them getting as close as 255, it does represent something that needs to be corrected. I have no doubt that in the future if there comes a time when a Republican wins the popular vote almost every single one of the states that has signed on to this measure will back out as they will see it for the error that it is. While I would settle for simply going back to the status quo my preferred method for the electoral college would be for the electors to be the one's actually making the decision and not being bound to follow their states vote. The original intention of the Electoral College system was not that a popular vote was to be taken in a state and then the electors vote for that candidate but rather that a person is elected to serve as an elector and they are to then use their best judgement as to who is best for president only using their state vote as a gauge for how their district thinks. I don't see that position ever coming to be since most states are now requiring their electors to vote the way their state votes at a minimum and the Supreme Court aiding them, see Chiafalo v. Washington.

Quote from: Centinel on November 08, 2020, 07:21:51 PM
I've seen this trend starting across the country and I agree with the sentiment that it is circumventing the purpose for the electoral college. Unfortunately Colorado has decided that it wishes to be a part of this movement and sacrifice it's vote to that of the coastal cities and other population centers. While I am skeptical whether or not the movement will reach their 270 requirement, although I could see them getting as close as 255, it does represent something that needs to be corrected. I have no doubt that in the future if there comes a time when a Republican wins the popular vote almost every single one of the states that has signed on to this measure will back out as they will see it for the error that it is. While I would settle for simply going back to the status quo my preferred method for the electoral college would be for the electors to be the one's actually making the decision and not being bound to follow their states vote. The original intention of the Electoral College system was not that a popular vote was to be taken in a state and then the electors vote for that candidate but rather that a person is elected to serve as an elector and they are to then use their best judgement as to who is best for president only using their state vote as a gauge for how their district thinks. I don't see that position ever coming to be since most states are now requiring their electors to vote the way their state votes at a minimum and the Supreme Court aiding them, see Chiafalo v. Washington.

Well said! Our Founders would be taking up arms if they returned to today and saw what we've allowed the Marxist in both partys do to our Constitution.
The Electors were never meant to be used as a cudgel by the State, and that's exactly what this is, a solid theft of the people's voice.

Welcome to the forum Centinel...

Quote from: Centinel on November 08, 2020, 07:21:51 PM
I've seen this trend starting across the country and I agree with the sentiment that it is circumventing the purpose for the electoral college. Unfortunately Colorado has decided that it wishes to be a part of this movement and sacrifice it's vote to that of the coastal cities and other population centers. While I am skeptical whether or not the movement will reach their 270 requirement, although I could see them getting as close as 255, it does represent something that needs to be corrected. I have no doubt that in the future if there comes a time when a Republican wins the popular vote almost every single one of the states that has signed on to this measure will back out as they will see it for the error that it is. While I would settle for simply going back to the status quo my preferred method for the electoral college would be for the electors to be the one's actually making the decision and not being bound to follow their states vote. The original intention of the Electoral College system was not that a popular vote was to be taken in a state and then the electors vote for that candidate but rather that a person is elected to serve as an elector and they are to then use their best judgement as to who is best for president only using their state vote as a gauge for how their district thinks. I don't see that position ever coming to be since most states are now requiring their electors to vote the way their state votes at a minimum and the Supreme Court aiding them, see Chiafalo v. Washington.

"Unfortunately Colorado has decided that it wishes to be a part of this movement and sacrifice it's vote to that of the coastal cities and other population centers."

So true! It defies logic, but it is typical liberal logic.

Welcome to the forum. Hope you stick around as I am enjoying your posts.