Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

I think this is a bad idea, regardless of the candidate.  The intent of the Electoral College was to ensure representation across the spectrum of America, instead of being contriolled by coastal population centers.  I hope they don't achieve their goal, as they might as well just eliminate the Electoral College altogether.

NOTE:  DO NOT TURN THIS INTO A DISCUSSION ABOUT ANY SPECIFIC PERSON-This is about the Electoral College.  If you do, I will request that your comment be removed as OFF TOPIC

I wonder when did Malloy and other governors started feeling that our EC system is "fundamentally unfair". Was the system "fundamentally unfair" in 2012, 2008, 2004, and 2000, too? Did they feel this way in the 1950s - 1990s? This seems to be a very recent feeling of "fundamentally unfair".

I know that this election is not the first that was close enough to be decided by the E.C., but if everyone votes for the majority (overall) candidate, what is the point of the E.C. and what of the wishes of the voters of each state?  Pretty sure that this would turn into a SCOTUS case if it ever reaches that far.

I know that this election is not the first that was close enough to be decided by the E.C., but if everyone votes for the majority (overall) candidate, what is the point of the E.C. and what of the wishes of the voters of each state?  Pretty sure that this would turn into a SCOTUS case if it ever reaches that far.

I deliberately worded my comment 2 so it didn't mention the 2016 Trump/Clinton presidential race, because you told us to not to focus on a particular person and I respected your wishes.  But, since you introduced the 2016 election/EC to the discussion, I now feel free to add my 2 cents.

The 2016 presidential election was the first time in my nearly 50 years of voting that I've ever read that anyone from either of our 2 major political parties wanted to abolish the EC just because their candidate lost the EC.

Going back a bit in history, George Bush, the younger, did win the popular election by a few hundred votes. Remember, Gore just wanted a few select heavily Democratic counties recounted.   To wit....    en.wikipedia

"The Supreme Court decision allowed the previous vote certification to stand, as made by Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris , for George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's 25 electoral votes . Florida's votes gave Bush, the Republican candidate, 271 electoral votes, one more than the required 270 to win the Electoral College, and the defeat of Democratic candidate Al Gore , who received 266 electoral votes (a " faithless elector " from the District of Columbia abstained).

Media organizations subsequently analyzed the ballots and found that the originally proposed county-based recounts would have resulted in a different outcome (Bush victory) than a full statewide recount (Gore victory). Florida subsequently changed to new voting machines to avoid punch cards which had allowed dimpled cards or hanging chad .

So this means a vote in another state has weight in Connecticut? 

Pretty much means that the voters of Connecticut ONLY have any power if the candidate they back has won the national popular vote.

I NEVER want to hear a Democrat EVER utter the words "One man, one vote" again!

it means absolutely nothing now to some of them.

this is a new form of gerrymandering

It's about time we fixed this problem.

One of the major selling points for using the EC to pick the President over the popular vote method was because the founding fathers didn't trust the voters to get it right, so the Electorates were set as independent guards against a bad picks by the "Unwashed Masses".

The other problem meant to be addressed by the EC was the large Vs Small State problem.

At a time when information could only be spread as fast as wind or horse could carry it the worry was how a person, whose reputation and resume was well known by the 20 thousand voter in Rhode Island, would be able to compete head to head with a similarly known candidate from say Pennsylvanian with it's 100 thousand voters.

With our current level of information delivery the EC no longer serves a purpose.

A peanut farmer from Georgia can become just as well known as the Governor of California, during a campaign season. 

The EC is not needed to level the playing field between candidates.  No need to dilute the value of a California or Texas vote or enhance the Arkansas vote when every candidate is known Country wide by every voter.

Since the EC was designed to over compensate the voters in small States, making their votes more valuable than their fellow Americans, it has always been an unfair way of decided the President.

It hasn't been fixed sooner because it has only overridden the popular vote 5 times in our Countries history. (Between the decades folk tend to forget about the problem.)

Two of those 5 coming in the last 16 years and both of those popular vote losers but presidential job winners, happen to come from the same party.

The most recent of the EC victor/Popular Vote loser, lost by an resounding 3 million votes.  Something we'd not seen in the early 4 times this happened. 

Yep, well past time for this to change but since getting an Constitutional Amendment through is next to impossible I'm looking forward to seeing what kind of work arounds the different States come up with.

Why the Electoral college

The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

(See All of the Federalist 68)

Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others.

1790 United States Census

Well, this little workaround will have some serious repercussions.

Can you imagine the very first time a Republican wins the overall popular vote, and states like California and Connecticut are forced to give their electoral votes to that Republican?

gee, I wonder how long before Democrats repeal these type of laws?

2 seconds?

Author called off topic   {SP}

Author called Off Topic  {SP}

Author called off topic  {SP}

sorry folks.

no "agreement between states can override our constitution and this plan will never make it past the supreme court.

regardless what is signed today you are going to find the people of the states are not going to just let some governor actually give away their vote contrary to how the majority in that state voted without full scale burn the gov;s mansion style riots?

  pass an amendment or go fish.

what happens when states throw out the current people in power?  that agreement goes with, tossed in the trashcan.

I don't think the goal of 270 will ever be reached. but the court case would be fun to watch if it ever is.

yall are seriously too funny

no "agreement between states can override our constitution and this plan will never make it past the supreme court.

No, it IS THE Constitution which  guarantees that each state has the right to define how it's electors will behave.

There is no violation of the Constitution by this agreement.

It's in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2of the Constitution.

Well then, I hope the "will of the people" of Connecticut is heard and they get a vote on this matter.   This is no thing for a State Legislature to decide without the peoples vote.

Not to worry. Probably will never get their little coalition up too 270 electoral votes anyways.

And the very first time their state votes Democrat, and the popular vote overall winner is a Republican, those clowns won't be able to repeal that law fast enough.

imagine California giving ALL its electoral votes to (gasp!) a REPUBLICAN?!

Or, the sheer HORROR of it all!

with our constitution..  if not expressly stated, a power does not exist

remember trying the commerce clause to force people to engage in commerce?? also not a stated power in the commerce clause and was not added by the court.

so back on subject.

agreed the states "appoint" electors based on the number of senators and representatives (they actually have no choice)

but you are going to have to show me, chapter and verse, the part in the constitution that allows the following...

• the state govt can tell those electors how to vote

or

• state govt can tell electors to simply ignore the majority vote of that state.

take your time I will be back later.

 besides all that... the breaking of the social contract between the state govt and the people who watched their vote get stolen would result in bloodshed... guaranteed

state govt can tell electors to simply ignore the majority vote of that state.

why even go thru the motions of holding a mock election?

the term "rigged election" does not even cover this one.

LOL  

the left has lost its damn mind again

nationalpopularvote

President Trump apparently disagrees.

And?

Just because he disagrees doesn't mean squat.

It is, after all, only one man's opinion.

I'll take the Founding Fathers' system.

These little games Democrats are playing will be duly noted and remembered, and advertised on, come election time.

This "new" movement has been around since 2007, so it's been a slow process,

and as Texan stated could always always subject to the current party in a particular state government changing the rules yet again. 

(Massachusetts had changed their rules 10 times prior to joining the NPVI)

California was precleared by the DOJ that the NPVI would not violate the 14th or deprive minorities of voting rights.

4 of the 5 State Houses that most recently passed this initiative were Republican.  nationalpopularvote

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution guarantees the states rights and Clause 3 addresses the Electors.

If anything, several states are challenging the states rights existing winner take all rules.

nationalpopularvote

These little games Democrats are playing

Except that it doesn't appear to be Democrats currently driving this process...

nationalpopularvote

nationalpopularvote

so it's been a slow process,

a slow process destined for failure.

if some bs like this switches the outcome of an election?

the courts will stop the election dead in its tracks

NO INAUGURATION WILL TAKE PLACE

and it will never get past the courts.

I can even predict the exact words from that supreme court ruling that will piss you off.

"original intent"

"Doesn't appear"???

Connecticut joined the following states:

Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont, Rhode Island, California, Illinois, Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, Washington, and Washington, D.C.

Sounds EXACTLY like Democrats for the most part.

The Democrats love to play little games.

This, and looking for ways to tax the rich in THEIR states less.

"4 of the 5 State Houses that most recently passed this initiative were Republican. https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/"

This link doesn't support that statement. The law has ONLY been passed and signed by the states and D.C., as I mentioned and the article here stated.

Actually, the states that have actually PASSED this are overwhelmingly Democratic.

Even your own link backs ME up on this.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Explanation It has been enacted into law in 11 states with 165 electoral votes (CA, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA). This interstate compact will take effect when enacted by states with 105 more electoral votes. It has passed at least one house in 12 additional states with 96 electoral votes (AR, AZ, CO, CT, DE, ME, MI, NC, NM, NV, OK, OR) and been approved unanimously by committee votes in two additional states with 27 electoral votes (GA, MO). The bill has recently been passed by a 40–16 vote in the Republican-controlled Arizona House, 28–18 in Republican-controlled Oklahoma Senate, 57–4 in Republican-controlled New York Senate, 34-23 in Democratic-controlled Oregon House, and 26-16 in the New Mexico Senate. Map showing status in states
STATUS: AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DC DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD ME MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY

The bill has recently been passed by a 40–16 vote in the Republican-controlled Arizona House, 28–18 in Republican-controlled Oklahoma Senate, 57–4 in Republican-controlled New York Senate, 34-23 in Democratic-controlled Oregon House, and 26-16 in the New Mexico Senate.

Which is why I said this...

"Except that it doesn't appear to be Democrats currently driving this process..."

passing ONE House in a  state doesn't make it law. The ones that have passed this law are overwhelmingly Democratic.

But I am against it if it is supported by Dems OR the GOP.

state doesn't make it law.

I never stated that it did........  I merely pointed out momentum that indicates this is not a partisan issue.

But I am against it if it is supported by Dems OR the GOP.

As is your right ...

Author called off topic  {SP}

Removed for context