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

[tru_m.a.c]

The Connecticut state Senate on Saturday voted in favor of a measure to give the state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote.

The move puts the state in a position to become the 11th, in addition to Washington, D.C., to join an interstate compact to pool their electoral college votes for the candidate who wins the popular vote.

The state Senate voted 21-14 in favor of the bill, with the support of three GOP lawmakers, The Guardian reported. The measure passed the state House on a 77-73 vote last month. Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy is expected to sign the legislation, according to the report.

With the addition of Connecticut’s seven electoral votes, the compact would have 172 in total. For the compact to go into effect nationally, it would need 270 electoral votes – the number needed for a candidate to win the presidency.
The nationwide effort to form the compact gained traction after former President George W. Bush won the election without winning the popular vote, and has revived after the 2016 election.

President Trump won the Electoral College, but Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.
Connecticut passes bill giving electoral votes to presidential candidate who wins popular vote

 

[Secure Da Bag]

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.

 

[Pressure]

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.

seems this discussion started over a decade ago.

The nationwide effort to form the compact gained traction after former President George W. Bush won the election without winning the popular vote, and has revived after the 2016 election.

 

[ORDER_66]

wait a minute isnt that how it should have always worked???

 

[Secure Da Bag]

Even then, IIRC, it was the people doing the recount that were being harassed and attempts at protesters trying to keep them from doing the recount. Then there's the SC's role in the issue.

This compact may seem like common sense, but there's a reason the Founders gave the Electors the ability to vote opposite of the voting majority of their state. Given that Citizens United is considered Constitutional, there's a good chance this idea will backfire.

 

[Ghost Utmost]

That's what's up

Sounds like common sense

 

[DEAD7]

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

 

[newworldafro]

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

This is basically the state government telling the people of that that your vote is inconsequential.

If your eligible voters decide a particular candidate, how do you go behind their back and say we going to give our electoral college vote to whoever wins popular vote nationwide. You just shaat on your people.

They are do doing this based on a demographic shift they anticipate will give them Democratic winners from here to infinity. They assume the growing Hispanic population will vote Democratic in the biggest states.

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.

Right you're letting a few states run the rest of the state's like Suge Knight.

I'm a demographic nerd when it comes to population. I almost certain that about 40% of the U.S. population is in the Top 10 largest states.

 

[Pressure]

Right you're letting a few states run the rest of the state's like Suge Knight

Stupid point to make here, ducy?

 

[Secure Da Bag]

wait a minute isnt that how it should have always worked???

That's what I thought. I didn't think you could split electoral votes. But I guess they are allowing a state to flip its vote if a more populous state votes otherwise.

I understand the EC is supposed to give less populous states some leverage in electing Presidents. However, this "fix" is a crap way to go about the discrepancy.

 

[bzb]

this how virtually every election from the state level down works.

at the national level, whoever wins the most votes by state gets the bag from that state.

sounds like alt righters are concerned their targeted propganda campaigns won't be as effective as they were in the past.

 

[levitate]

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

bytch ass antiquated system.

 

[Starman]

wait a minute isnt that how it should have always worked???

That's what's up

Sounds like common sense

"The move puts the state in a position to become the 11th, in addition to Washington, D.C., to join an interstate compact to pool their electoral college votes for the candidate who wins the popular vote."

No, this isn't how it should have always worked nor is it common sense.

This is basically the state government telling the people of that that your vote is inconsequential.
If your eligible voters decide a particular candidate, how do you go behind their back and say we going to give our electoral college vote to whoever wins popular vote nationwide. You just shaat on your people.

This x 100! How do you even sell such chicanery to your constituents? Democratic victory at the expense of your own state's say in the matter?

 

[levitate]

"The move puts the state in a position to become the 11th, in addition to Washington, D.C., to join an interstate compact to pool their electoral college votes for the candidate who wins the popular vote."

No, this isn't how it should have always worked nor is it common sense.


This x 100! How do you even sell such chicanery to your constituents? Democratic victory at the expense of your own state's say in the matter?

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.

 

[Starman]

incorporate a majority rules.

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.