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

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by lowendlinux, May 7, 2018.

  1. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #1
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ote-victor/ar-AAwSRep?ocid=spartandhp&ffid=gz

    Interesting turn of events I wonder how they'll feel when the shoe ends up on the other foot
     
  2. chagla macrumors 6502a

    chagla

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2008
  3. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #3
    What other foot?

    Good on my state for having some sense.
     
  4. chabig, May 7, 2018
    Last edited: May 7, 2018

    chabig macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    #4
    The "other foot" is when the candidate favored by your state's voters doesn't win the most popular votes nationally.
     
  5. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #5
    So, you'll be ok with CT disenfranchising their voters?

    Hypothetically, lets say in the 2020 election CT votes for the Democrat nominee. Also, lets say the Republican nominee wins the national popular vote. You'd be ok with CT casting its electoral votes for the Republican?

    Seems like this is just another example of the Democrats trying to thwart the will of the voters, just like their super delegates in the primaries.
     
  6. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #6
    Popular vote is the only way to have a democracy. If a GOPer wins the popular vote they should get the friggin vote.

    Perhaps you’ve mistaken me for a partisan hack?

    I don’t do team sports.
     
  7. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #7
    The democrats are trying to thwart the will of the voters by trying to elect the person with the most votes? Sounds to me like a minority trying to remain relevant.

    Not sure if this would stick, so many conservatives see the red on the map and think deserts and cornfields can vote. Also doesn't help that the last two conservatives to take the White House didn't win the popular vote.
     
  8. jerwin macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #8
    that requires an amendment. The compact amounts to the same thing without the hassle.
     
  9. cube macrumors Pentium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #9
    This is literally the road to populism.

    But a broken EC did not save you.
     
  10. mac_in_tosh macrumors 6502

    mac_in_tosh

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Location:
    Earth
    #10
    You don't think both sides do that? How about McConnell vowing to make Obama's presidency unsuccessful? How about him not allowing a vote on Obama's Supreme Court nominee or not waiting for Alabama's newly elected senator to take office before voting on the tax bill? How about GOP controlled state governments gerrymandering districts to suppress Democratic representation in Congress?
     
  11. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #11
    You’re missing the nuance here. Everything you stated IS Republicanism in its current form. So when their base votes for these actions it IS the will of their people.

    This post started off toungue in cheek, then got really depressing.
     
  12. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #12
  13. ericgtr12 macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #13
    Stripping out any sort of partisanship here to wholeheartedly agree @NT1440 take the party out of it, I don't care if it was Trump/Bush/Obama, etc. the EC is a terrible system that does far more to disenfranchise voters than a straight up popular vote. As long as we have politicians dictating which districts have what sort of say it will never be a fair system.
     
  14. Mousse macrumors 68000

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #14
    So you're fine with your vote (and every citizen in CT) not mattering? I wouldn't be happy about that. Hail, my vote doesn't count unless I vote Republican (Texas, y'all) and I'm hopping mad.
     
  15. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #15
    How does my vote not matter (ignoring that we live in an Oligarchy of course)?

    Perhaps you should read my other posts in the thread?

    This is simply the mechanism that will nullify the control mechanism the founders put in place to make sure only wealth mattered, without having to have an amendment. Once enough states join that tips the EC numbers the EC ******** is over.
     
  16. cube macrumors Pentium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #16
    The EC is not a terrible system. You have a terrible implementation of it.
     
  17. Mousse macrumors 68000

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #17
    CT's EC will go with the popular winner. Even if 100% of the citizens vote Blue, Red wins the national popular, the Red gets all of CT's EC. CT's citizen's vote does not get the candidate they voted for. If EVERY State decides to abolish the EC then, everyone's vote would matter. I agree with you on wanting to kill the Electorial College crap.
     
  18. cube macrumors Pentium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #18
    No, if every state assigned electors proportionally, everyone's vote would matter.
     
  19. alex2792 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    #19
    They’ll roll back the change if Trump wins the popular vote in 2020.
     
  20. ThisBougieLife, May 7, 2018
    Last edited: May 7, 2018

    ThisBougieLife macrumors 68000

    ThisBougieLife

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Location:
    SF Bay Area, California
    #20
    My vote essentially doesn't matter in California--we'll always go blue no matter what. And my vote is worth less anyway because we have a higher population.

    I understand why the EC was created; I don't think the founding fathers were idiots, they had good reasons for creating it. But I think that times have changed and many of the reasons are not as relevant as they once were. And since in most elections the popular vote and the electoral vote align anyway, it doesn't seem like it would be that much of a change.
     
  21. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68040

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #21
    I don't see how this is fair unless all states do it. If a majority of votes go to Party A but Party B won more votes in other states, CT voters' votes are meaningless. It has to be all or nothing, EC or popular vote for all States.
     
  22. ActionableMango macrumors G3

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #22
    It's like in a show-of-hands contest, CT is that guy who will be looking around at the crowd in the room to see which side has the most hands raised in the air, then goes along with that side. It's very sheep-like.

    The EC has serious problems, but this is not the solution.
     
  23. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #23
    I don't think their law is going to stand up in court. It may be symbolic at best. If it were this easy to subvert the constitution you'd have other states pulling this kind of crap regarding the 2nd, etc.
     
  24. LizKat macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #24
    A so-called liberal state deciding it didn't like a pseudo-populist reality TV star's having won the 2016 election is a terrible premise on which to launch a tune-up of how we elect a more reality-aware president.

    Let's start with a contest where the variables we want to measure are a little more out in the open from the beginning. I'm not sure even 2020 will be a good time to eyeball results with intent to see how the electoral process could be tweaked. We damaged ourselves by measuring each other with baseball bats the last time out. We're not playing well together as a country even now.

    I recommend reading this interesting piece about the Hippocratic oath, which contrary to popular belief is a) not something every doctor swears to in this era, and b) depending on translation, does not include the admonition to "First: do no harm."

    https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/first-do-no-harm-201510138421

    We should not intend harm to each other in adjusting our way of determining who wins an American Presidency. But we may not be able to find a way to choose a new President that doesn't harm anyone, and "not harming anyone" should not be the foremost focus of looking for better ways to provide the country with the best fit for its next President. To go there first invites cacaphony as response to every single proposal.

    Doctors accept that they cannot save every life that turns up in the ER hanging by a thread. Patients are fairly often somewhat less convinced of that. Whoever meddles with what the framers of our Constitution figured is good enough to save America from its worst impulses should have a care and acknowledge that perfection is impossible. Individual voters should have a care that "my way or the highway" is the mark of a would be tyrant.

    I don't happen to think the Electoral College system is particularly broken or denies voters input to the process. Of course it's tempting to think that when the candidate I favor does not win the EC but wins the popular vote. I say however in my saner moments that that is exactly an outcome that the framers may have considered certainly possible and even desirable.

    We need a good mix of power sharing between rural and urban residents in Washington DC. The presidency is unique; its occupant must be able to represent interests of the nation as a whole even if --even though-- its denizens don't all think so!

    The gerrymandering of electoral districts by incumbent majorities (of either party) does seem harmful. That can be fixed by the courts if the state legislators cannot set aside the polarized views on it and come up with good maps by deadlines. It's starting to happen. Of course so are lawsuits trying to deny courts that power by suggesting that it's not unconstitutional to try to protect a political advantage. Stay tuned. SCOTUS seems undecided (ambivalent?) overall on the matter and so far as I know has taken care to stipulate its related decisions or refusal to take cases are case-specific. The cases are not being brought by just Democrats or just Republicans.

    Reduction of gerrymandering is likely to increase purple districts and so make more swing districts and possibly swing states in future. We are seeing some population shifts now as boomers age out but take their possibly more liberal values back to the boondocks from which some of them hailed. Meanwhile the exodus of younger folk to cities continues. Sometimes people become more conservative as they age, and sometimes college graduates' political landing zones are more affected by their parents' economic experiences than by their own education and actual economic opportunities. The net results in local as well as federal races will be interesting to see. None of that sounds like a great moment to take an axe to how we go about electing our President. The boat, she's rockin' n rollin'. We could lose a toe or worse trying to chop the power of the EC "down to size."
     
  25. lowendlinux thread starter Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #25
    Apparently this has been lobbied for for over 10 years so I'm assuming it's in reaction to W.

    The article read that a lot of the wealthy blue east coast states have already signed laws like this..We could be looking a huge and moneyed constitutional crises in the middle of a presidential election year.
     

Share This Page