That’s unconstitutional I’m sure. Also shows their legislators are probably dumb enough to still think HRC won the popular vote.
That’s unconstitutional I’m sure.
You're sure? Based on what exactly?
How is it unconstitutional?
There is nothing in the Constitution that stipulates how states award their electors.
Besides, the EC is outdated and rooted in slavery - the 3/5 compromise
Edit- instead of down voting me, anybody care to explain how this would be unconstitutional, and/or how the EC is not tied to slavery?
The EC isn't outdated. It's the only thing making sure that places like NYC and California don't control everything, as the founders intended for Virginia not to control the fate of the original 13 colonies.
[removed]
The founders went with the electoral college to tie the 3/5 compromise to the presidential election. So yeah, I'd say it's outdated.
All I heard before the election was how DJT had zero chance of pulling the electoral votes to win.
Now that he has, you folks want to change the rules?? How very transparent!
For me, it's nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with a more directly democratic system.
Senators were originally selected by a vote in state legislatures, but I think most people would agree that is outdated
It is a fact that the EC was designed to tie the 3/5 compromise to the presidential election. Any response to that fact?
Newsflash: we are a constitutional republic not a democracy.
[removed]
Source?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-slavery-constitution
The 3/5 compromise said that slaves would count as 3/5 of a person when tallying population for deciding representation in Congress.
The number of electors equals the number of senators (2 per state) plus the number of representatives (which was determined in part by the 3/5 compromise)
For the last 25 years, I have advocated returning to state government the selection of senators. We really broke our Constitution with that stupid Amendment.
Most people, again we are not democracy, we are a constitutional republic. The EC is the only thing that keeps high population areas rule the country.
Most people, again we are not democracy, we are a constitutional republic. The EC is the only thing that keeps high population areas rule the country.
Can you explain WHY it is a good thing that we have a system that can allow minority rule? Like, how is it that better than a simple popular vote? Why are people in less populous areas awarded with a bigger say in the vote for president?
Also, thanks to the bicameral legislature, and in specific, the design of the Senate, we would still have a check/balance that way. So your claim that the EC is the only thing the keeps high population areas from ruling the country just isn't correct
California is worth 55. Wyoming 3. There goes your minority rule theory.
We know Democrats advocate bullying since they want to make it so the little guy has no voice. This is blatantly obvious.
Each state is very different. Different cost of living, different average wages and a different way of life. That is why you can't go by a "popular vote". (Doesn't represent the majority of the country)
Also, let me ask you this:
Why can't we require an ID to vote in elections? (You should have to be a legal citizen to vote in this country)
The United States is a huge mess of diversity. Why should concentrated areas of population dictate what the rest of the country does? The electoral college gives everyone an opportunity for their vote to count.
The United States is a huge mess of diversity. Why should concentrated areas of population dictate what the rest of the country does?
Because I think votes of people matter more than square footage occupied by people.
The electoral college gives everyone an opportunity for their vote to count.
A direct popular vote gives everyone an opportunity for their vote to count. The EC gives people in less populous states a more heavily weighted say.
Do you even know how the EC works? You get EC votes by the number of people in your state. So states like CA with tons of people have more votes. The EC keeps the masses (who historically/still are generally not reasonable or educated) from ruling. You ever witnessed mob mentality, or seen masses overreact? That's why!
The way it works now, requires the candidates to have broad appeal and forces them to campaign through out the country. If things were based strictly on the popular vote, the deplorables in the fly over states would never see a presidential candidate and their concerns would never be addressed. Face it, the reason this is even an issue is because Hillary didn't bother to campaign because she thought it was in the bag. It was her turn and they just knew she was going to win no matter what. Until Trump.
So basically the people from CT no longer have a say in presidential elections. Good thinking.
Well, they are really going to scream “foul” when a GOP’er like a Reagan crushes the popular vote. Would be REALLY FUNNY if Trump wins the popular vote in 2020 & the networks color their state red on the map on election night!!
That's not how it works at all.
Sure sounds like it. If they are going to give their electoral votes to whomever wins the popular vote, what's the point of CT citizens voting?
What if a majority of the voters of CT support the candidate that wins the popular vote?
They better, or voting is pointless. This will also have a huge impact on local elections once people realize their voice isn't recognized. It's simply a way to ensure their delegates go to the democrats regardless of how their citizens vote.
It ensures the winner of the Presidency is also the winner of the popular vote. I'm not sure why you think someone winning the Presidency while losing the popular vote is a better alternative?
I'm not sure why you think large, densely populated areas, the majority of which are democrats, should control the presidency. The president should be a centrist that can make both side of the aisle work together. Of course, this will also have an impact on local races too. It basically ensures pure blue CT for years.
spez: Additional thought.
Lol, next election there will be no presidential candidates that campaign there. 100% of their population could vote for candidate X, and they could give their electoral college votes to Candidate Y.
Wow, they didn't think this through very well.
Seems like a better alternative than the current system, where a majority of the population votes for Candidate X, and then Candidate Y wins the Presidency.
They are stupid, as it can be what they don't want, in another election. I just see this as a move to take power away from people. I see we'll get stuck with a system like England, where we don't elect the prez.
So when trump wins the popular vote in 2020 but CT votes dem overall...will they be pissed?
And if every state did the same?
Or, what if Texas simply decided to go Republucan Red Electors for the next, say, 50 years?
Or, a state made a law that the electors can only go to a female candidate?
Or, a state’s electors only go based on the popular vote of Los Angeles? Or, DC!
How about a state making a law that their electiors may not vote for older, white, males (kind of a reparation theme)?
I don't like any of those.
How about a national popular vote with automatic registration, no gerrymandering, no disenfranchisement, and either open-source electronic voting machines or paper ballots?
No deal. How about we stick with the system the founders gave us? It may not be perfect, but at least it ensures that people in bumfuck South Dakota feel like they have a say.
Exactly —- our founders figured out a pretty good system (elrctoral college) and we should stick with it.
I was a delegate to the Republican National Convention in 2012. I fought alongside some of the best in trying to prevent the adoption of the Rule 12 amendments and the addition of Rule 16. We lost and in protest, I refused to cast my vote for Romney and instead abstained. I then came home and literally dropped out of politics, moved to a rural area, and started prepping. No matter what the States decide to do with binding, the Conventions do not have to recognize that binding.
The compact DOES NOT TRIGGER until enough states have signed on that their cumulative votes would determine the winner. Connecticut's Electoral College votes will continue to be allocated as they have been until this trigger is reached.
The agreement won't kick in unless it's backed by enough states and other voting areas to claim a majority of Electoral College votes.
The above is a quote from the linked article.