The 10th Circus Court in Denver just struck a blow against the Popular Vote Compact by acknowledging what has been true since to adoption of the Constitution ;that electors are free to vote for whoever they choose regardless of how the state directs them to vote. The case stems from elector
Micheal Baca, a Colorado Democratic who was required to cast his ballot for Evita who won the state's popular vote. Instead, he crossed out her name and wrote in John Kasich.
The secretary of state removed Baca as an elector, discarded his vote and brought in another elector who voted for Evita . But the court said the nullification of Baca's vote was unconstitutional. The court said that the states are empowered to appoint electors only but they have no power to nullify an electors vote. Assuming this decision holds up in SCOTUS (and I believe it will ) . That could weaken all the ideas of the compact to have the election of the President decided by the popular vote. The 10th Circus' decision only applies to states in it's jurisdiction including
Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico. However ,if other Appeals Courts rule differently ,or if Colorado appeals this decision then SCOTUS could take up the case before Dec 2020 .

Be so simple taking the politics out of the election and just going with the popular vote. The founders had to have a fail safe in case the people wanted to vote the elites out didn't they? Appointing senators and Electoral College delegates served that purpose, though choosing senators have been the province of the people since the 17th amendment.

We should make it so for the highest office of the land too.

Be so simple taking the politics out of the election and just going with the popular vote. The founders had to have a fail safe in case the people wanted to vote the elites out didn't they?

In the most recent election, HC was very much the political elite and DT was the outsider, non-politician trying to get elected. I guess the founding fathers would have been much happier if HC had gotten in?

Irrelevant what the founding fathers would have thought about the 2016 elections outcome, it's modern man who suffer the consequences of bad choices in the first place. The next election is the opportunity to correct that choice. 2016 was but a wake up call to the fallibility of human error by non participation.

The dufus is no longer the outsider ,but the insider who is part of the problem, and obviously not a good solution.

The dufus is no longer the outsider ,but the insider who is part of the problem, and obviously not a good solution

Yeah. You can vote for some of the really non-political elite like Biden, Harris, or Spartacus. Don't kid yourself. Trump is the only real outsider in the whole group. I don't like his big mouth or his deficit spending, but he is not a part of the politically elite.

OKAY, fine with me. If we get rid of the dufus, however YOU define him, and Moscow Mitch, it would be a great improvement.

OKAY, fine with me. If we get rid of the dufus, however YOU define him, and Moscow Mitch, it would be a great improvement.

I understand you feel that way. I just think you are wrong in trying to say that you are somehow standing against the election of the elite.

The framers reasoning was as sound now as it was then. I live in a state where the vast majority of the people live in an urban and suburban environment while the largest areas of the state has the smallest populations . I can tell you that most of NY state still lives in a 1930s depression like existence and they not virtually ,but in reality have no representation in Albany to address this . That is why the electoral college is still relevant . The a$$wipes like the Clintonoids would campaign in a handful of the urban areas where most of the people live ,cater to them and wouldn't give a rats a$$ about the rest of the country.
You know it's true . Evita called Trump supporters a basket of deplorables . Peter Strzok said he went to Walmart and smelled Trump supporters . Imagine how they would be if they didn't have to make at least a half a$$ed effort to get those hayseed yahoos in flyover country to support them ?

But if you don't like that reasoning I'll give you another .
Under the Constitution, the person who receives the most electoral votes becomes the president, even if he or she does not receive either a plurality or a majority of the popular vote.
1992, Bubba received a majority of the electoral votes and became President, even though he only had a plurality (43 percent) of the popular votes. Ross Perot, received almost 19 percent. In fact, Bubba did not win a majority of the popular vote in either of his elections .But there was no doubt he won because the rules say you have to get the most electoral votes . And that was with only one 3rd party challenger . Even in 2016 Evita did not get a majority because of very minor 3rd party candidates .Imagine multiple 3rd party challengers like in the Parliamentary systems where every special interest could join a crowded field hoping that they could squeeze out enough of a plurality to get elected . It would be absolute chaos ;pro-life and pro-choice parties; free trade and anti-trade parties; pro-immigration and anti-immigration parties; and parties favoring or opposing gun control just to mention a couple of the possibilities . Remember that guy who ran on the rents being too high ? What would prevent him from eeking out a plurality ? We don't have a parliamentary system to accommodate these multiple special interests . In that system they get together after the fact and horse trade to build majorities . We would out of necessity have to scrap our constitutional system .

Now in the extreme case where electors cannot give a majority to the candidates then the 12th amendment kicks in and Congress decides who is President .Without the electoral college this could easily be the norm.

Your logic is very compelling as usual Tomder, and ending up with a dem and repub as prez and vice would be interesting indeed. Give the repubs credit for abject unity even after the dufus ran a coup and took over the party. For better or worse, impressive, even if all they really accomplished was tax cuts for the rich and judges, and made a few happy campers, but screwed most of us.

We would out of necessity have to scrap our constitutional system .
Now in the extreme case where electors cannot give a majority to the candidates then the 12th amendment kicks in and Congress decides who is President .Without the electoral college this could easily be the norm.





You speak as if this would be a bad thing, but you have a system where unelected persons decide who is to be President. Ok the people have decided and electoral college voting is a formality, nevertheless, those persons could go against the popular vote, or in the case of HC confirm the popular vote

For better or worse, impressive, even if all they really accomplished was tax cuts for the rich and judges.

When the bottom 80% of the income earners only pay a little more than 10% of the taxes, how are you supposed to give tax relief to them?

Clete 10 electors changed their vote . Evita lost 5 ,Trump 3 and 2 had their vote overturned by their state .Here is where the votes went ;
Colin Powell , Kasich ,Bernie Sanders ,Ron Paul
and Faith Spotted Eagle each got some elector votes .

In over 2 centuries there have been a total of 167 times where electors went against their state There is no threat to our system .

In over 2 centuries there have been a total of 167 times where electors went against their state There is no threat to our system .


The threat occurred in 2016 and when Bush Jr. was elected.


When the bottom 80% of the income earners only pay a little more than 10% of the taxes, how are you supposed to give tax relief to them?


Your ability to miss the point is uncanny.

It wasn't about tax relief to the lowest, it was about giving tax relief to those who had no need of it and therefore increased the deficit HUGELY.

Your ability to miss the point is uncanny.

It wasn't about tax relief to the lowest, it was about giving tax relief to those who had no need of it and therefore increased the deficit HUGELY.

What do you suppose the 20% do with that money that does not end up in the government's hands?

When taxes were higher under Obama, are you saying we had no deficits then?

I think you completely miss the point, the deficit isn't about taxes, it is about spending, spending money the government doesn't have. If you confiscated the entire GDP for one year you couldn't repay the debt

I think you completely miss the point, the deficit isn't about taxes, it is about spending, spending money the government doesn't have. If you confiscated the entire GDP for one year you couldn't repay the debt

Just about right. I don't fault Trump for cutting taxes so much as for not controlling spending.

I think you completely miss the point, the deficit isn't about taxes, it is about spending, spending money the government doesn't have. If you confiscated the entire GDP for one year you couldn't repay the debt


When there is a huge tax cut for the rich, it increases the deficit by that amount in loss of revenue. Get it? Right-wing/Republican theories that reducing taxes generates revenue that pays for the reduction has been proven to be false, most recently in Kansas.

When there is a huge tax cut for the rich, it increases the deficit by that amount in loss of revenue. Get it? Right-wing/Republican theories that reducing taxes generates revenue that pays for the reduction has been proven to be false, most recently in Kansas.

Obama increased taxes and had huge deficits. Trump lowered taxes and has huge deficits. I'll just bet that controlling spending has something to do with this whole thing.

When there is a huge tax cut for the rich, it increases the deficit by that amount in loss of revenue. Get it? Right-wing/Republican theories that reducing taxes generates revenue that pays for the reduction has been proven to be false, most recently in Kansas.

In a perfect world such policies might work, however, the world is not perfect, and people don't respond the way economists think, the economy is not a model any more than the climate is a model. Right now in Brazil right wing expansionist theories are creating an environmental disaster which will soon be an economic disaster when other economies react

The supply side tax cuts theory is ONLY false when you can't control spending . It was proven sound theory in 1963 when proposed it and it was passed in 1964 The tax cuts fueled the growth of the golden era of the mid-1960s …..
eight 1/2 year of uninterrupted growth of over 5% per year. That growth created jobs .
Tax revenues INCREASED from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, The same was true of the Reagan cuts . It was out of control spending that created an expanding deficit .Add to that unsustainable long term obligations of mandatory spending like Social Security Medicare and debt service . and you get to the point where we now owe more than 100 % GDP.

So where is the big infrastructure building projects like the one the repubs nixed because it was paid for by raising taxes on the rich by .05 cents? Moscow Mitch was scuttled that one too!

Supply side economics can only work when there is the mechanism to increase demand. Yeah tell me the lie about how it pays for itself again without main street investing in a consumer driven economy. Or it's just another tool for LEGAL stealing, by greedy rich guys to invest in themselves making MO'MONEY.

what about them ? The emperor had a massive 0.8 trillion dollar infrastructure plan ,mostly fixing pot holes. That did nothing to stimulate the economy . Throw Keynesian theory in the trash heap of history . You cannot tax and spend your way to prosperity . A pox on all these federally funded "infrastructure " programs. Call it what it really is …...PORK

Filling potholes is a full time 24/7 job. How long do you think it took for Eisenhower to build all those highways? You call it PORK, I call it perpetual growth.

Or we can copy India and kill two birds with one stone:

https://www.thebetterindia.com/43685/plastic-waste-in-road-construction-plastic-man-india-prof-vasudevan/

Yes statist do believe in the perpetual spending of other people's money .The interstate system was designed as a military project . It was an investment in the common defense . Those needs were fulfilled in the 1960s .
Since then the system has become a government boondoggle to enrich political allies and usurp power over the states in violation of the Constitution. There is no Constitutional warrant for the Interstate System as it now exists.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 ;the postal clause allows for some roads ...not ambitious pork projects that usurp the powers of the states . So no .I do not believe in some central budgeting system for road construction and repair .

Even some of your left of center nations realize that there is a better way . It is called Public-Private projects where new roads are funded privately ,and tolls are collected for their use. Toll collection is getting easier by the day with less of a burden on the driver .I drive down miles of highways without ever actually having to stop at a booth. I have an ez pass . But now NY state is redesigning license plates to make them easier for the technology to read. And the best part of it is that the people who actually use the roads pay for them instead of the funding coming out of some massive porkulus spending bill .

WG no concern about bisphenol A seepage ;or the release of other chemicals that are used in the production of plastics (especially gases )?

Over time, as the road weathers, the plastic will break down into micro particles of plastic and enter the environment releasing the various chemicals used in their original production. I think enviromentalists are cheering this innovation now ;but will second guess their support down the road. I would also like to know the skid resistant nature of plastics compared to standard asphalt Roads that incorporate recycled glass in with the asphalt cannot be driven on at the same speeds ie no highways only local roads .

Well Tom we can always just shutdown the government and let the capitalists run the place. Like they do under the table any way. They run the EPA, Education, Commerce, Energy and probably a lot more. Any of 'em do disaster relief?


WG no concern about bisphenol A seepage ;or the release of other chemicals that are used in the production of plastics (especially gases )?

Over time, as the road weathers, the plastic will break down into micro particles of plastic and enter the environment releasing the various chemicals used in their original production. I think enviromentalists are cheering this innovation now ;but will second guess their support down the road. I would also like to know the skid resistant nature of plastics compared to standard asphalt Roads that incorporate recycled glass in with the asphalt cannot be driven on at the same speeds ie no highways only local roads .



They tried to use coal ash and that was a disaster. Don't fire those pot hole fillers just yet. Does insurance cover your car being totaled by a pothole?

They run the EPA, Education, Commerce, Energy and probably a lot more.

There is no way that is true.

There is no way that is true.

How would you know? Even the ones that resigned in scandal were lobbyist for the industries they now regulate.

How would you know? Even the ones that resigned in scandal were lobbyist for the industries they now regulate.

You can't seriously suggest that the policies of the EPA, Fed. Dept. of Ed, etc, in any way reflect capitalist philosophy.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Except the Fed. They're supposed to be independent, but the dufus publicly tries to micromanage that too. The rest are run by industry sympathizers.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Except the Fed. They're supposed to be independent, but the dufus publicly tries to micromanage that too. The rest are run by industry sympathizers.

Which policies by the EPA are capitalist based? That department has been know for decades to be a nest of liberal extremists. Same is true of Dept. of Ed. I had to live under their ridiculous policies for years. If you think they are capitalist based, then you have no understanding of capitalism.

Geez JL, at least recognize that things have changed an awful lot in the last 3 years since the dufus came in with his own swamp critters. I survived and thrived and did my thing under repubs many times, so buck up and get over it. Come on you got what you want and still ain't happy?

That's YOUR problem not mine.

it is one thing to change appointed administrative heads . It is another thing to change an entrenched culture in a beurocracy. That takes many years . The civil service system makes them the permanent state . All they need to do is outlast elected officials

So those appointed cabinet heads cannot effect policy? I beg to differ and can say they can and do CONTROL the policy, if not the culture.

They sure can take taxpayer money that doesn't belong to them and use it for personal gratification. Trump tends to hire grifters like himself.

policy can reduce their impact . But the only true way is to reduce the size of the beurocracy.
For every Sally Yates who openly defied and got fired ,there are thousands entrenched who are refusing to comply or surreptitiously working within to sabotage the agenda. Some even signed up for civil disobedience classes . I agree with you .They should do their job as directed or go find something else to do . I say we could cut the whole civilian force in half and have no impact on the "services " they perform

Geez JL, at least recognize that things have changed an awful lot in the last 3 years since the dufus came in with his own swamp critters. I survived and thrived and did my thing under repubs many times, so buck up and get over it. Come on you got what you want and still ain't happy?

Like I said, what policies?

Like I said, what policies?

Explained before TWICE now with several links.



policy can reduce their impact . But the only true way is to reduce the size of the beurocracy.
For every Sally Yates who openly defied and got fired ,there are thousands entrenched who are refusing to comply or surreptitiously working within to sabotage the agenda. Some even signed up for civil disobedience classes . I agree with you .They should do their job as directed or go find something else to do . I say we could cut the whole civilian force in half and have no impact on the "services " they perform

That's a rather broad statement and Yates wasn't fired for disobeying a LAWFULL order, it was found unlawful by 4 federal judges. Nice spin though as usual but we all remember that the travel ban was changed to comply with the law, after all kinds of chaos. LOL, even the dufus's closest people have ignored his ill conceived ignorant orders, as detailed in the Mueller Report.

Even his boy Lewandowsky said no way! Come on TOM.