At the Hotchkiss "town hall," State Senator Donovan and Representative McCluskey spent about 15 minutes talking about several bills. Neither mentioned the Red Flag (gun seizure) bill, the National Popular Vote bill, or the oil and gas restrictions bill, or answered questions from the group (did answer a few individual questions post-meeting).
They turned the "town hall" over to a California state ex-senator who presented "The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, A State Based Plan to Preserve and Protect the Electoral College." I agree that the NPV would preserve the electoral college, but in name only, since all electors would vote for the winner of the national popular vote. I believe it would decimate the power of low-population states.
This compact will take effect when the states signed on have a total of 270 electoral votes, enough to win the election. (Each state has the number of electors equal to its total of federal senators and representatives. California has 55; Wyoming has 3.)
The main problem with using the NPV is that half of the U.S. population lives in just nine states, so nine states could decide the election. The presenter was unable to convince conservatives that the NPV would benefit rural states.
In the 2016 election, Trump had to win about half of the states to gain enough electoral votes. As one attendee noted, this is not the "United Population of America," it is the "United STATES of America," in which the states are to have power that balances the population (republic, not democracy!).
The presenter noted that the number of electors each state has is determined by population, and illegals are counted in population, giving an unfair advantage to states with many illegals. What better argument for a wall?