Connecticut passes bill giving electoral votes to presidential candidate who wins popular vote

[DEAD7]

Just need to get rid of the system altogether and go purely by popular vote.

bytch ass antiquated system.

Edit:
Just realized those saying this are all on the side with the numbers to win every going forward election under direct democracy.
#politicsasusual

Carry on.

 

[Pressure]

Edit:
Just realized those saying this are all on the side with the numbers to win every going forward election under direct democracy.
#politicsasusual

Carry on.

at this moment.



Free market this, free market that...
We should not allow the government to inject itself over the will of the people



*Discovers he's in the minority*

We must protect ourselves from allowing the views of the majority dictate our democracy!

 

[Ghost Utmost]

Vs the chicanery of having a candidate that you voteed for win the popular vote and still lose?



fukk both of these systems and incorporate a majority rules.

If they get enough electoral votes under this system to sign the agreement, then that's EXACTLY what they will have accomplished.

The election would go to the candidate who won the popular vote.

I know it sounds like a round about way to do it, but no one is totally rewriting the laws anytime soon so this sounds like the fastest way to "go around" the electoral college.

 

[GnauzBookOfRhymes]

This seems stupid. As much as people want to bash the electoral college, which has its issues, it was not the reason Clinton lost. Clinton was the reason she lost. Plus, the vast majority of those 3 million votes came from California alone. This solves nothing. It doesn't even address the actual issues in this election. Which were many. But the EC was the least of them all.

So you're saying if we didn't have the EC, Hillary would've still lost?

So people from California shouldn't have their votes counted? Are they less American than someone from Mississippi?

 

[acri1]

Does the candidate who loses the popular win that often? Or is this just rage against Trumps win?

Didn't this happen with Bush/Gore in 2000?

No; we aren't just one massive political entity, we are a collection of individual states. A strict popular vote gives too much political power to high density states, imo.

No, the electoral college gives excessive political power to small states, so this is just fixing that issue. And that's not my opinion, it's a mathematical fact that right now, voters in those states have more power per vote.

Unless you think voters in rural states are more important.

 

[Starman]

No, the electoral college gives excessive political power to small states, so this is just fixing that issue. And that's not my opinion, it's a mathematical fact that right now, voters in those states have more power per vote.

Unless you think voters in rural states are more important.

I disagree that the EC gives rural state "excessive" political power, but it does give them more than their population would indicate. I prefer that to the NO political power of a pure popular vote.

 

[JBoy]

I prefer abolishing the system altogether or disrupting electoral votes by margin in states but this isn't too much worst than the atrocious system we have now

 

[hashmander]

Does the candidate who loses the popular win that often? Or is this just rage against Trumps win?

often? just the last two republican presidents. i'd say it's becoming a problem.

 

[DEAD7]

Free market this, free market that...
We should not allow the government to inject itself over the will of the people
*Discovers he's in the minority*
We must protect ourselves from allowing the views of the majority dictate our democracy!

We don’t live in a democracy.

And the reverse can be said for statist.


Moreover, libertarians(save anarchist) all believe the tyranny of the majority must be kept in check.

 

[DEAD7]

Didn't this happen with Bush/Gore in 2000?

often? just the last two republican presidents. i'd say it's becoming a problem.

I mean out of 45 presidents how many times has this happened and does that percentage justify a state shytting on its residents and voting for whoever wins the popular?

 

[hashmander]

I mean out of 45 presidents how many times has this happened and does that percentage justify a state shytting on its residents and voting for whoever wins the popular?

well prior to 43 it wasn't an issue, it was just some fluky thing that happened 3x in the 1800s when blacks and women couldn't vote. then it presented itself as reality in modern america people then took notice. and then 45 happened and suddenly it's not a fluke, it's a way for conservatives to win in modern america.

 

[acri1]

I disagree that the EC gives rural state "excessive" political power, but it does give them more than their population would indicate. I prefer that to the NO political power of a pure popular vote.

How does a popular vote where everyone's vote counts equally give anyone "No" political power?

We don’t live in a democracy.

And the reverse can be said for statist.


Moreover, libertarians(save anarchist) all believe the tyranny of the majority must be kept in check.

So voting Democrat qualifies as tyranny?

I mean out of 45 presidents how many times has this happened and does that percentage justify a state shytting on its residents and voting for whoever wins the popular?

It's happened five times (though Trump lost the popular vote by the greatest margin), and yes that's enough to address the issue. And it certainly doesn't qualify as "shytting on its residents" especially when they want it.

 

[Pressure]

Moreover, libertarians(save anarchist) all believe the tyranny of the majority must be kept in check

Sounds like same arguments slave owners used.

 

[Kinguno]

CT not even a state it's a highway with crooked and hilly roads

 

[DEAD7]

it's a way for conservatives to win in modern america.

This sums up the issue.
The side with the numbers(Liberals) want it so they win
Conservatives don’t want it so they can win.



It’s just politics