Ct electoral votes
Community
So im listening to the radio and it seems the ct legislature is discussing giving the states electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote, regardless of the outcome of the states votes
Yes, there are some states pushing that in their legislatures effectively doing away with the electoral college delegates. NM is pushing the same thing. Notice how it is democrat controlled states doing this, another display of being sore losers.
Ironic if the state makes it that way and then the candidate they don't want wins the popular vote...
One of the comments I heard by one representative, was (paraphrasing) If they don't like the outcome in the future, they can change it back. This is just insanity. In this state there is really little to worry about, it's pretty well a foregone conclusion that the electoral votes are going to go democrat regardless, but the idea that they will potentially disenfranchise the voters in the state for the gain of the democrat party is just un believable.
I've got to believe that even a liberal SCOTUS would not allow that.
It would render the votes of Connecticut voters irrelevant, which would clearly be unconstitutional as well as being in direct conflict with the Court's "One Man One Vote" ruling in the Reynolds v Sims case in 1964.
Sometimes I'm really embarrassed to be a resident of CT........time to petition we change our nickname to "The Constipation State"......
Kyle, I've learned long ago in this F'd up state, not to apply logic or common sense to anything that is done here, If they can dream it up...they'll pass it.
HDE, they aren't pushing to do away with the electoral college delegates, they are looking to give their votes to the winner of the popular vote, which would potentially make the residents votes irrelevant as Kyle said. Like a buddy of mine always says..you just can't make this stuff up.
If the electoral votes go the highest bidder, in this case the most popular, then electoral delegates for each state are not needed as it is already decided. Winner takes all. But as pointed out, rural area votes will no matter. The dems passed it in NM 26-16.
Yes, I am very disappointed (and embarrassed) to be a resident of NM. It has become batshit crazy as of late...
This is a terrible idea, but Nva, I don't see how if states did this it would make individual votes irrelevant. They'd still be part of the popular vote, but their vote would be dependent on the outcome of the rest of the country for their electoral votes. If all states did this the small population states are screwed, which if I'm not mistaking was the whole reason for setting up the electoral college in the first place and it would ultimately do away with the electoral process (only if all states did this) Not all states subscribe to the "winner take all" with their electors (almost all do), so maybe states can do something like this.
ben h - for example, in NM the Rio Grande corridor, Santa Fe, and northern NM would decide for us all the time as that us where the highest population densities are and they are all democrat. Why should I even vote, other than the "right" to complain.
Yeah Pat, I have the same thing going on.
Pat, you can always move about 10 miles north to my state. Oh wait, just as bad nevermind.
CT's proposal would require their voters' EC votes to not be cast for the candidate CT voters voted for, but instead to be cast for what the SF and LA whack jobs wanted.
DISENFRANCHISEMENT!
HDE, I live in Utah where the vast majority of the people live on the Wasatch Front; you'd think they'd decide what happens, but Mormons and Rural Utah, to their credit have crazy high voter turn out and they're actually the dominant voice. Full disclosure I am a republican and don't really care in my case.
Nva, after a quick internet search, Nebraska and Maine are the only states that do not participate in the "winner take all" approach for allocating votes based on the popular vote within their states, they do sort of a percentage allocation, which if every state did this, it would approach just going to a popular vote as well. Those 2 states are by no means game changers with their 9 delegates, but I fail to see how states who choose to do something other than the "winner take all" with their electors would disenfranchise voters. It would require their legislature who the people voted for as well to make such a change. I'm opposed to this type of change and recognize the implications that it would have, but If states want to change the way they want to allocate votes, I don't see how they could be stopped, unless as you stated the Supreme Court had a problem with the change.
I don't believe it's actually happened, but some states there is not even a requirement that their electors vote the way their constituents voted. Candidate A can win the popular vote in the state and the elector can vote candidate B for whatever reason they feel.
How does it disenfranchise voters? First of all the Popular vote is not the criteria used to elect the president. So the state wants to send their electoral votes to the candidate that won the popular vote. Think about that for a second.
bb, I recognize we do not select the president based on the popular vote, but rather the electorates; 1 for each senator + 1 for each representative (which is based on population). If we did have 100% voter participation this approaches popular vote, but lesser populated states are slightly over represented. Of course 100% is theoretical and for practical purposes can't be achieved.
My question is, if states want to do something other than "winner take all", why can't they? NE and ME already do that, and as I stated, some states have no requirements how their delegates vote anyway. I'm not in support of CT delegates going to whoever wins the popular vote nation wide, but if that's what you decide (meaning the majority of the voters via your legislators), who am I to say otherwise, because I live in Utah? I don't see how this would deprive you of the right to vote.
If CT took a balanced approach and gave a percentage of their votes based on the popular vote within the state, CT would actually be less blue.
I'm not trying to be argumentative or combative on this issue, I just don't understand why states can't change the way they choose to distribute their electorates if they want to (provided it's not unconstitutional).
Why don't they just say that their Electoral Votes go to the Democrat. That would eliminate having to change their laws if a Republican won the Electoral Vote.
Terry
Coyote 65, that is essentially what they are saying. Ben h, Me and Ne don't do what CT is proposing. If you aren't understanding this I'm at a loss for how to explain it so you do understand.
I cannot imagine this passing constitutional scrutiny.
You know, this legislation could be a good thing for you Pat. CT is going to vote blue every time. If it so happened that the country voted red in the popular vote, but the electoral college... never mind. It's not going to matter one bit.
As I understand it, 11 states have already joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
It becomes law in those states when enough states join the NPVIC to total 270 electoral votes. Currently the NPVIC has 165 electoral votes.
BTW, this is nothing new. The first state to join the NPVIC was Maryland in 2007. The legislation has been introduced to all 50 states. 11 states have passed it and signed it into law. 10 more states have adopted it in only one chamber, so far.
I'm surprised this is the first you guys have heard of this.
Matt
ben h and bb,
It's disenfranchisement because it essentially says "Your vote only counts if you vote for the person who wins the national popular vote." Another way to put is to say, "If enough people in San Francisco, and New York City vote for the candidate you did NOT for and that candidate then wins the national popular vote, we'll ignore your vote completely and instead, cast it for the candidate you did not want."
Example: State X's voters vote 60% for the candidate who did not win the national popular vote and only 40% for the candidate who did win the national popular vote. But because of this stupid law, the candidate who lost the state by 20% would get that state's Electoral Votes.
The state, therefore has told 60% of their voters to 'eff off.'
We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.
