NPR: Connecticut OKs Bill Pledging Electoral Votes to Popular Vote Winner (campaign, democratic)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Several other states already do this (detailed in the article.)
Connecticut is the eleventh.
I would like to see more states get onboard with this though I can certainly see how/why some states wouldn’t.
It will be interesting to see if this really does gain any more momentum going into 2020.
“Connecticut is poised to commit its electoral votes to whichever U.S. presidential candidate wins the nation's popular vote — regardless of who wins the state.
By embracing the plan, Connecticut's General Assembly gave new momentum to a push to change the way Americans elect their president.“
Seems like an easy thing to overturn in the State Supreme Court... all it takes is ONE Connecticut resident to file harm and win... easily... its almost to the point of insanity for liberals... they do the most stupid thing knowing it is completely stupid...
We had a great thread in Great Debates about the Electoral College and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) had come up. So, now the compact has 172 of the 270 needed. That's some progress there. Keep in mind that the prior 10 states + DC that agreed to this did so BEFORE the 2016 election. So, it isn't like this idea only came about because of 2016.
Thanks - I'll have to take a look at that thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dspguy
I only see a few possible paths to actually circumventing the Electoral College (note: I'm not saying abolishing, but going around it):
- The NPVIC won't get to 270 without either commonly red states or swing states signing on. Swing states won't because why give up power? Red states likely won't unless a Republican candidate wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote. So, it might take many election cycles for that to happen
My thoughts as well.
When one electoral vote in Wyoming (for example) carries as much weight as many many more in CA, it is not in WY's best interest to change how their electoral votes are apportioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dspguy
- If the NPVIC gets "close" to 270, but not quite there, I could see some pressure for states to start selecting electors proportionally. Keep in mind that nowhere in the Constitution does it even say that the people elect the president. States send electors as per the rules we all know (each state gets electors based on their representation in the House and Congress). The states could select electors based on the popular vote or whatever the governor wants or pitting candidates in a fight to the death or letting a goat pick.
The point is, the NPVIC keeps the idea of National Popular Vote in the conversation. Speaking for myself, if an actual national popular vote couldn't happen, at a bare minimum, I'd like to see all states select electors proportionally based on their states' popular vote. 60-40 in a 10 elector state? 6 for candidate A, 4 for Candidate B.
Yes, I like that this is keeping the conversation going.
And I agree that some sort of proportional compromise would not be a bad idea either.
Supreme Court case in the making? Maybe. This strikes me as a nullification-type crisis in the making. President - he of the $20 bill, stilll - took decisive action to end that constitutional challenge.
Why?
As per the article ten other states already do this.
As per the article ten other states already do this.
Has it been challenged?
The thing is, they don't do it. The NPV only goes into effect, if then, when enough states sign on to it that brings the EC total to 270.
Like others, it will be interesting to see what would happen to this "compact" if the national popular vote winner is not who the state voted for. Especially if the state (or states) EC votes would make the losing popular vote winner President.
The easiest way to "fix" the Electoral College would be for the vote to be tallied proportionally.
Fun Fact:
If the above would have been in effect in 2016 Trump would still have won, although his Electoral margin would have been less. Trading one EC vote from South Dakota for 20 or so from California is a no brainer.
Bush won NM 376930-370942 - only 5988 votes
Bush won IA 751957-741898 - only 10059 votes
Bush won NV 418690-397190 - only 21500 votes
That's 37.5k votes across three states that decided an election. Bush was winning the popular vote by 3 million votes (2.4%)!. Yet, he needed razor thin margins of victory (about 1%) in those states.
I think the conversation would be very different had Kerry pulled it off. I guess that's what it will take too.
I'm wondering whether the people of an entire state will be OK with being completely disenfranchised in the presidential election process.
The reality is that people in many states already are disenfranchised.
They already have little to-no say with regard to who gets nominations due to the primary schedules.
Perhaps what is really needed is a country-wide primary day so that those decisions are made across the board at one time and everyone gets to vote for the candidate that they really want to vote for to begin with.
"But instead of substituting New Hampshire and Iowa with a Texas and New York (or a Georgia and Minnesota, or a Florida and Michigan), let’s consider the obvious alternative: a national primary, conducted on a single day. It’s a very simple proposal. Registered party members in a given state would pick the candidate they like best. The candidate with the most support would win that state’s primary and take home the concomitant number of Electoral College votes, à la the general election. The person who acquires a majority of electoral votes goes onto the general election as the nominee. End of story."
The thing is, they don't do it. The NPV only goes into effect, if then, when enough states sign on to it that brings the EC total to 270.
Like others, it will be interesting to see what would happen to this "compact" if the national popular vote winner is not who the state voted for. Especially if the state (or states) EC votes would make the losing popular vote winner President.
The easiest way to "fix" the Electoral College would be for the vote to be tallied proportionally.
Fun Fact:
If the above would have been in effect in 2016 Trump would still have won, although his Electoral margin would have been less. Trading one EC vote from South Dakota for 20 or so from California is a no brainer.
Yes, of course you are correct. I worded that badly.
And I agree, proportionate tallies are the fairest way to go.
I'm wondering whether the people of an entire state will be OK with being completely disenfranchised in the presidential election process.
First, they already are completely disenfranchised. As is most of the country.
Observe:
95% of all campaign stops were in the following states: FL NC PA OH VA MI NH IA CO NV WI NM
Only 33% of the total population lives in those states. That's two thirds of the country, ignored.
Second, nowhere does the Constitution say the people elect the president. The state legislatures select the method. I'm not sure what legal standing the people have. The people can elect new state representatives to overturn it if they choose.
And just a fun fact about those 12 states I listed there: in 2016, they were worth 153 EV or 28% of 538. Candidates are confident that they can focus on merely 28% of the EV. All the other EV are meaningless to them.
Last edited by dspguy; 05-08-2018 at 10:00 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
