Connecticut moves toward Supporting the National Popular Vote initiative

[lpetrich]

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

Connecticut’s legislature has passed a bill that would give the state’s Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote nationally.

The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73.

...
Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) has promised to sign the legislation committing his state to the interstate agreement. ...

Malloy has described the current Electoral College voting system as “fundamentally unfair.”

National Popular Vote is the effort's home page. From Status of National Popular Vote Bill in Each State | National Popular Vote, Connecticut joining the NPV will make the number of states supporting it go from 11 to 12, the number of electoral votes in it from 165 to 172, and the number remaining from 105 to 98. When the number reaches 270, it will go into effect.

 

[Copernicus]

Given the unwillingness of so many people to support an amendment to the Constitution to abolish the electoral college, the National Popular Vote Initiative is the next best thing. Perhaps, if it actually got triggered by enough states, there would be more willingness to reform the entire system with a bona fide Constitutional amendment.

 

[steve_bank]

The founders saw national popular vote as anarchy.

IMO a better solution is to vote for a party. The majority party or a coalition in Congress selects the chief executive.

Get rid of the costly continuos polical campaigning.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Given the unwillingness of so many people to support an amendment to the Constitution to abolish the electoral college, the National Popular Vote Initiative is the next best thing. Perhaps, if it actually got triggered by enough states, there would be more willingness to reform the entire system with a bona fide Constitutional amendment.

I wonder if it would trigger the process for constitutional amendment. I think according to Article V, 2/3 of the states have to agree to apply for the change, but it has not yet happened in a bottom-up way.

 

[Copernicus]

The founders saw national popular vote as anarchy.

IMO a better solution is to vote for a party. The majority party or a coalition in Congress selects the chief executive.

Get rid of the costly continuos polical campaigning.

It was actually Hamilton who came up with the idea. He worried that a popular vote would lead to the election of a totally incompetent or corrupt president, because the general public weren't educated or sophisticated enough to pick wisely. Electors would represent an educated elite cadre of landowners. The idea was seized upon by southern slaveowners, because the 3-5ths compromise guaranteed them a prospect of keeping slavery alive. Hence, we got a lot of presidents from Virginia. Ironically, in the modern context, the electoral college gives us Donald Trump, just the kind of president that Hamilton thought it would keep out of the presidency.

IMO, the only sensible method of electing a president is by a majority of the popular vote. We could have a runoff election or another secondary method for electing the president when there is no simple majority for any one candidate.

Given the unwillingness of so many people to support an amendment to the Constitution to abolish the electoral college, the National Popular Vote Initiative is the next best thing. Perhaps, if it actually got triggered by enough states, there would be more willingness to reform the entire system with a bona fide Constitutional amendment.

I wonder if it would trigger the process for constitutional amendment. I think according to Article V, 2/3 of the states have to agree to apply for the change, but it has not yet happened in a bottom-up way.

The National Popular Vote Initiative gets around the need to an amendment to the Constitution. It is a strategy that gives a coalition of states the power to circumvent the idiotic electoral college mess.

 

[steve_bank]

The beginning of the end.

Jefferson thought democracy would depend on education. The idea that we can turn out voters who can critically reason on politics on the scale of the USA is a failure.

Christians supported Trump with his horrible morality because he pandered to them. With a popular vote the effect of one vote is lessened. States are already ignored in campaigns because of low electoral value.

Getting rid of the electoral college would write off a number of states. Who cares about Wyoming and Montana?

As was said, the intent was to have a president selected by landed educated people. It was Jackson who I believe ran the first actual campaign.

Now states are maneuvering. It doesn't look like the federal govt as is will be viable.

Limited fed and more power to states which operate fairly well. The UK and France have polical divides, but on a much smaller scale. The founders could never have imagined modern USA. We are trying to shoehorn the 19th century into the 21st. It is just nor working.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It was actually Hamilton who came up with the idea. He worried that a popular vote would lead to the election of a totally incompetent or corrupt president, because the general public weren't educated or sophisticated enough to pick wisely. Electors would represent an educated elite cadre of landowners. The idea was seized upon by southern slaveowners, because the 3-5ths compromise guaranteed them a prospect of keeping slavery alive. Hence, we got a lot of presidents from Virginia. Ironically, in the modern context, the electoral college gives us Donald Trump, just the kind of president that Hamilton thought it would keep out of the presidency.

IMO, the only sensible method of electing a president is by a majority of the popular vote. We could have a runoff election or another secondary method for electing the president when there is no simple majority for any one candidate.

I wonder if it would trigger the process for constitutional amendment. I think according to Article V, 2/3 of the states have to agree to apply for the change, but it has not yet happened in a bottom-up way.

The National Popular Vote Initiative gets around the need to an amendment to the Constitution. It is a strategy that gives a coalition of states the power to circumvent the idiotic electoral college mess.

I understood that. But what it doesn't do is change it in states that don't want to change....maybe because those states are redistricted to give undue influence to Repubs. Since you brought up an amendment, my question is, suppose 2/3 of states do this initiative...will that trigger one of the conditions in article v?

 

[Rhea]

Getting rid of the electoral college would write off a number of states. Who cares about Wyoming and Montana?

Who _does_ care about Montana and Wyoming? Enough that their votes are worth 3.6 TIMES that of a Californian? What is so Wyoming-ey about Wyoming that it is worth 3.6 times what’s Clifornia-ey?

More to the point, it’s not really Montana at all. It’s rural. So this way the Rural Californians finally get a voice, right? Rural New Yorkers finally get to be heard. And they agree with the rural Wyomingites. Meanwhile urban Texans can finally be heard. Why would anyone object to that?

 

[Copernicus]

Getting rid of the electoral college would write off a number of states. Who cares about Wyoming and Montana?

Who _does_ care about Montana and Wyoming? Enough that their votes are worth 3.6 TIMES that of a Californian? What is so Wyoming-ey about Wyoming that it is worth 3.6 times what’s Clifornia-ey?

More to the point, it’s not really Montana at all. It’s rural. So this way the Rural Californians finally get a voice, right? Rural New Yorkers finally get to be heard. And they agree with the rural Wyomingites. Meanwhile urban Texans can finally be heard. Why would anyone object to that?

Exactly right, Rhea. I hear so many bad arguments from people searching for some means to justify the electoral college, and this idea that small states and rural areas need to be given more weight at the ballot box--and conversely that urban areas ought to be short-weighted--is utterly absurd. Every single state in the Union, no matter how large or small, gets exactly two senators in Congress. That makes no sense at all, because both Wyoming and Montana's mini-population can overwhelm California's mega-population when it comes to passing important legislation through Congress. The Senate was specifically set up to address the concerns of smaller states, but there were relatively few in the original confederation of states. Nowadays, the small states outnumber the large ones and have a greater advantage in controlling our bicameral legislature. But people forget this when they get all concerned about small states somehow being forgotten during presidential elections.

Every single American citizen should have equal weight in choosing who gets to become President. That is a national office. Presidents are supposed to think about what is good for the entire country, not just those states that they need to win the electoral college. Puerto Ricans, residents of Washington DC, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, etc.--why should they not get a say in who becomes President? The electoral college was a screwball idea that helped lock the country in a struggle over slavery for a period of almost a century that ended in bloody civil war. It was one of the worst ideas that was ever baked into the Constitution.

 

[Copernicus]

It was actually Hamilton who came up with the idea. He worried that a popular vote would lead to the election of a totally incompetent or corrupt president, because the general public weren't educated or sophisticated enough to pick wisely. Electors would represent an educated elite cadre of landowners. The idea was seized upon by southern slaveowners, because the 3-5ths compromise guaranteed them a prospect of keeping slavery alive. Hence, we got a lot of presidents from Virginia. Ironically, in the modern context, the electoral college gives us Donald Trump, just the kind of president that Hamilton thought it would keep out of the presidency.

IMO, the only sensible method of electing a president is by a majority of the popular vote. We could have a runoff election or another secondary method for electing the president when there is no simple majority for any one candidate.

I wonder if it would trigger the process for constitutional amendment. I think according to Article V, 2/3 of the states have to agree to apply for the change, but it has not yet happened in a bottom-up way.

The National Popular Vote Initiative gets around the need to an amendment to the Constitution. It is a strategy that gives a coalition of states the power to circumvent the idiotic electoral college mess.

I understood that. But what it doesn't do is change it in states that don't want to change....maybe because those states are redistricted to give undue influence to Repubs. Since you brought up an amendment, my question is, suppose 2/3 of states do this initiative...will that trigger one of the conditions in article v?

You should review how the  National Popular Vote Interstate Compact works. It has nothing to do with amending the Constitution and will change nothing in it. It is actually a very clever idea in that it depends on states with enough electoral votes to win the electoral college. They pledge all of their delegates to whichever candidate wins the popular vote, regardless of which states people live in. As things stand, most states engage in a winner-take-all strategy that awards all electoral delegates to the candidate that wins the presidential election within the state, thus cancelling out the segment of state population that opposes that candidate. This initiative takes that logic to a higher level by awarding the presidency to whichever candidate wins the popular vote in the entire country, regardless of which state they live in. So the electoral college would suddenly become nullified by this bloc of votes from the states that have enshrined the initiative in law. Hence, every US citizen in a state that permits voting in the presidential election would suddenly have a reason to vote. All votes would count equally. Note that the initiative only goes into effect when a bloc of states with enough electoral votes to control the presidential election ratify the compact.

This initiative is essentially an alternative to a Constitutional amendment process, and it only works because of the uniquely screwy way that the electoral college system was set up.

 

[laughing dog]

. Every single state in the Union, no matter how large or small, gets exactly two senators in Congress. That makes no sense at all, because both Wyoming and Montana's mini-population can overwhelm California's mega-population when it comes to passing important legislation through Congress.

That is true in the Senate but not in the House of Representatives.

The Senate was specifically set up to address the concerns of smaller states, but there were relatively few in the original confederation of states.

Are you sure about that? Doesn't it depend on how you define smaller vs larger states?

Nowadays, the small states outnumber the large ones and have a greater advantage in controlling our bicameral legislature.

That is utterly false. They have a greater advantage in the Senate but no advantage in the House.

 

[Terrell]

What keeps any state(s) that agree to this compact from reneging if they think it's in their political interest to do so?

 

[steve_bank]

What keeps any state(s) that agree to this compact from reneging if they think it's in their political interest to do so?

That's what I was thinking. In today's climate what are the odds of 12 states reaching a concensus supported by the voters?

 

[ImGod]

Getting rid of the electoral college would write off a number of states. Who cares about Wyoming and Montana?

Who _does_ care about Montana and Wyoming? Enough that their votes are worth 3.6 TIMES that of a Californian? What is so Wyoming-ey about Wyoming that it is worth 3.6 times what’s Clifornia-ey?

More to the point, it’s not really Montana at all. It’s rural. So this way the Rural Californians finally get a voice, right? Rural New Yorkers finally get to be heard. And they agree with the rural Wyomingites. Meanwhile urban Texans can finally be heard. Why would anyone object to that?

How do you come to the conclusion that they get 3.6 times the votes of CA? The house of representatives has 53 members from CA and Montana 1. CA has 55 electoral votes and Montana 3.

What your doing is taking one of the smallest states and comparing it to the largest state in the one category that wouldn't change even with a popular vote for presidency. Your example is for the Senate which was the compromise needed to get the Union to form because none of the small states at the time the constitution was ratified wanted to be Virgina's bitch for the foreseeable future. Without the Senate the chances of any territory joining after the formation of the country would have been about nil. Just admit your problem is with the Senate and not the Electoral college vote for presidency.

So if you don't care about Montana and Wyoming, it's not hard to let them or any other states leave if you plan on changing the rules. My guess is Montana and Wyoming are too small to have much say anyway. You're going to have to convince the mid sized 10+ million population states down that they should cede power to CA, NY, FL, and Texas and give up the electoral college system. Some of the small coat tail states might get on board if they think CA will treat them nicely.

The proposals however don't mimic popular vote. They say they'll switch their electoral college votes to match the winner of the popular vote regardless of how their constituents voted. If they were serious about mimicking the popular vote they would simply split their electoral college votes like they do in Maine and Nebraska. That's a simple fix that doesn't require them to vote against the will of their constituents based on election results in another part of the country.

An interesting side note is that there is no requirement that EC voters be selected by a general population vote (just like how parties aren't required to hold a popular vote for their candidates in a primary). We've just gravitated to this method. What happens if one state doesn't hold voting that year and selects it EC representatives by State government voting or game of chance? Would there be a "popular vote" then for these states to base their election on?

 

[ronburgundy]

I understood that. But what it doesn't do is change it in states that don't want to change....maybe because those states are redistricted to give undue influence to Repubs. Since you brought up an amendment, my question is, suppose 2/3 of states do this initiative...will that trigger one of the conditions in article v?

You should review how the  National Popular Vote Interstate Compact works. It has nothing to do with amending the Constitution and will change nothing in it. It is actually a very clever idea in that it depends on states with enough electoral votes to win the electoral college. They pledge all of their delegates to whichever candidate wins the popular vote, regardless of which states people live in. As things stand, most states engage in a winner-take-all strategy that awards all electoral delegates to the candidate that wins the presidential election within the state, thus cancelling out the segment of state population that opposes that candidate. This initiative takes that logic to a higher level by awarding the presidency to whichever candidate wins the popular vote in the entire country, regardless of which state they live in. So the electoral college would suddenly become nullified by this bloc of votes from the states that have enshrined the initiative in law. Hence, every US citizen in a state that permits voting in the presidential election would suddenly have a reason to vote. All votes would count equally. Note that the initiative only goes into effect when a bloc of states with enough electoral votes to control the presidential election ratify the compact.

This initiative is essentially an alternative to a Constitutional amendment process, and it only works because of the uniquely screwy way that the electoral college system was set up.

It is clever, but will never work. No GOP controlled state will agree to it, and the Dems don't control enough states to reach to 270 mark.
Plus, the agreement is in no way binding. Any state that passes it with a slight Dem majority will see a massive influx of GOP efforts to gain a majority and nullify the agreement. The number of states that are part of it will go up and down with every state election that results in a party change for the governor or majority control of the legislature.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It does seem to be a pipe dream of sorts. I can't imagine the court challenges.

 

[dismal]

It does seem to be a pipe dream of sorts. I can't imagine the court challenges.

Other than the "dream" part.

It seems clear most people will get something closer to the government they want if we steered back to the sort of federalism the founders envisioned. A Federal government of few, enumerated powers and states free to govern as their own people saw fit.

 

[Copernicus]

It does seem to be a pipe dream of sorts. I can't imagine the court challenges.

Other than the "dream" part.

It seems clear most people will get something closer to the government they want if we steered back to the sort of federalism the founders envisioned. A Federal government of few, enumerated powers and states free to govern as their own people saw fit.

Utter nonsense. You are describing how it was under the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution was adopted precisely because that early attempt at a confederation failed miserably. The federal government had no power to levy taxes, and the states were in conflicts with each other that led to violent clashes in some cases. And the original "dream" was one in which the "people" represented a minority of adults. Slaves and women were excluded. In some cases, the slave population outnumbered the free population of a state. That is a "dream" we don't need to revisit.

 

[Copernicus]

Every single state in the Union, no matter how large or small, gets exactly two senators in Congress. That makes no sense at all, because both Wyoming and Montana's mini-population can overwhelm California's mega-population when it comes to passing important legislation through Congress.

That is true in the Senate but not in the House of Representatives.

Please reread the words you are responding to. How many senators do you think are elected to the House? Here's a subtle hint: none.

The Senate was specifically set up to address the concerns of smaller states, but there were relatively few in the original confederation of states.

Are you sure about that? Doesn't it depend on how you define smaller vs larger states?

Yes and yes. The definition depends on proportional representation in the legislature. The Senate was set up that way because proportional representation was anathema to smaller states such as Rhode Island and Delaware. They needed assurance that their concerns would be taken into consideration when laws were passed, and the federalists needed their support in order to get a new federal Constitution adopted. So they were promised equal voting power in the second house of a bicameral legislature.

Nowadays, the small states outnumber the large ones and have a greater advantage in controlling our bicameral legislature.

That is utterly false. They have a greater advantage in the Senate but no advantage in the House.

Again, consider what I actually said. The House was set up for proportional representation. The Senate was set up for state representation.

 

[Copernicus]

What keeps any state(s) that agree to this compact from reneging if they think it's in their political interest to do so?

Good question. This objection is frequently raised, and it is a possibility. However, what makes it unlikely is the difficulty of repealing a state law. That would not be easy, because most people seem to believe that the president should be elected by popular vote. The electoral college system is not currently popular except among those who regard the Constitution as religious scripture. Even Donald Trump opposes the electoral college system, and he was elected only because it exists. But, even if this scenario were to occur, other states might rush to keep the system in place. We can always speculate about the future, but this is not a good reason to oppose the initiative, if one otherwise agrees with the principle of democratic election of presidents.