Colorado Democratic Gov. Jared Polis is poised to hand over his state’s power to elect presidents to major population centers.
Polis is scheduled to sign the National Popular Vote bill, which recently was approved by the Democratic-controlled majorities in the state House and Senate.
It would give Colorado’s nine Electoral College votes to the candidate with the most popular votes nationwide.
The plan already has been adopted by nearly a dozen states. But there are not enough yet to give the popular-vote winner the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the White House.
Democrats in New Mexico, however, already are moving on an NPV bill, and several other states are considering one.
Bypassing the Electoral College would make the major urban centers that lean heavily Democratic the focus of election campaigns.
There would be no need for a presidential candidate to campaign in states such as Wyoming, Nebraska or North Dakota.
WND contacted Polis’ office but received no response.
Questions posed by WND included the concerns of state Colorado state Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, who said, “Why would we want to cede any of our power to what the national popular vote says, to what California says, to what New York says?”
WND also asked how a national popular vote would affect the ability of Colorado voters to influence national elections.
“There’s a reason only large or Democratic-controlled states are moving in this direction — Hillary Clinton would be president now under this system,” he wrote. “It gives all the power to elect presidents to heavily populated states, and silences the voice of flyover country overwhelmingly populated by Republicans.
“Republican State Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg of Sterling says this bill would abdicate Colorado’s voice in presidential elections, and he’s right,” he said. “Republicans tried to drive home their point by jokingly suggesting language stating Colorado would just be surrendering their vote to California. It would be funnier if it weren’t actually true.”
In a comment in the forum under the article, George Webb demanded the “names of the persons in Colorado Senate that took my right away to vote for the person I feel is most qualified to be President of the United States.”
“I did not give up my right and would not give up my right to vote . Person’s stealing my rights should be locked up as a criminal because they are stealing my voice,” he wrote. “No one has the right to do that and I will fight that to the death.”
The chairman of the non-profit National Popular Vote Inc., John Koza, wrote in an editorial for the Baltimore Sun that the NPV plan would make every vote for president “equal” and would force presidential candidates to campaign in all 50 states.
But that would assume a candidate calculates that a visit to Casper, Wyoming, or North Platte, Nebraska, would reach as many voters as an event in New York City or Chicago.
Election expert Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation calls the NPV compact “unconstitutional and bad public policy.”
“It would undermine the protections of the Electoral College, elevating the importance of big urban centers like New York and Los Angeles while diminishing the influence of smaller states and rural areas,” he said.
“That was a major reason for establishing the Electoral College in the first place: to prevent elections from becoming contests where presidential candidates would simply campaign in big cities for votes.”
Under the present allocation of Electoral College votes, which could change depending on population shifts, the NPV would predetermine the result of any national election if California (55), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27), Pennsylvania (21), Illinois (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17) and North Carolina, New Jersey and Georgia (15 each) agreed.
That would total 271 Electoral College votes, unbeatable by the total from the other 39 states.
The Washington Free Beacon noted that if Idaho “had been in the compact in 2016, and if the compact were in force, the state’s four Electoral College votes would have been cast for Hillary Clinton even though Donald Trump beat her by more than a two-to-one margin there, because Clinton won more votes nationwide.”
Rob Natelson, a constitutional scholar in Colorado, published a lengthy argument against the NPV, the Free Beacon reported.
Natelson wrote: “In deciding how electors are appointed, state lawmakers may choose among a range of procedures. But they have a constitutional duty to choose a method consistent with the electoral system’s purpose and design. Attempting to convert electors into agents of other states – like selling them to the highest bidder – would be an unconstitutional breach of public trust.”
The late conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly once said the NPV is trying to “achieve the longtime liberal goal of getting rid of the Electoral College” without a constitutional amendment, which would be nearly impossible to obtain.
She said the NPV “is a scheme to deviously bypass the grand design of our U.S. Constitution.”
“If the NPV lobbyists can get enough states whose votes in the Electoral College total at least 270, they will be able to steal votes away from some candidates, transfer those votes to another candidate and thereby construct a fake majority in the Electoral College,” Schlafly said.
“The NPV slogan ‘Every Vote Equal’ is dishonest because the NPV proposal is based on legalizing vote-stealing. For example, Texas or Louisiana could be forced to cast its votes for a candidate who won more votes in other states, such as New York.
“People who pretend that the Electoral College system is undemocratic are not only ignorant of the history and purposes of the U.S. Constitution, but they probably don’t even understand baseball. Basing the election on a plurality of the popular vote while ignoring the states would be like the New York Yankees claiming they won the 1960 World Series because they outscored the Pirates in runs 55-27 and in hits 91-60. Yet, the Pirates fairly won that World Series, 4 games to 3, and no one challenges their victory.”
So far, virtually all of the states that have joined the movement are Democratic-majority.