Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

[Unagi]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... spartanntp


At first blush, I think this is great... now to think about it some more.


edit: The agreement goes into effect once states representing at least 270 electoral votes — the number needed for a candidate to win the presidency — signs the compact.

interesting. (smart)

[Moliere]

Giving it to the National vote winner seems like a way to annoy Connecticut voters.

[Unagi]

I love this idea.

270 worth of states get behind this idea, and the EC is basically bi-passed by the Popular Vote victor.

[Unagi]

Giving it to the National vote winner seems like a way to annoy Connecticut voters.

Apparently not.

[Unagi]

I love what it does for the Voters.

Today: Any voter that is in a state that doesn't 'reflect them' just ends up saying their vote is worthless. (mostly accurate)

This would be telling them: No. It counts.

[Remus West]

I love what it does for the Voters.

Any voter that is in a state that doesn't 'reflect them' just ends up saying their vote is worthless. This would be telling them: No. It counts.

Not that I'm not intrigued by the idea but I disagree with this assessment. If you are in a Red State and the national vote goes Blue then you're entire State's votes for their choice of candidate "do not count".

I do think it tilts towards undoing the EC but I'd need to take the time to look into it a lot further to see this as anything other than a reaction to the latest debacle of a Presidential election than anything else.

[Defiant]

It only goes into effect in all states that have signed aboard the compact once they all have enough electoral votes to determine the election (thereby making the other states electoral votes irrelevant.)

But one question I have is - what if, after some census, those states lose some of those electoral votes and no longer have an absolute majority. Does it switch back to the current system?

[Jeff V]

I love what it does for the Voters.

Any voter that is in a state that doesn't 'reflect them' just ends up saying their vote is worthless. This would be telling them: No. It counts.

Not that I'm not intrigued by the idea but I disagree with this assessment. If you are in a Red State and the national vote goes Blue then you're entire State's votes for their choice of candidate "do not count".

You're looking at it from the wrong direction. If you are a blue voter in an overwhelming red state (or vice-versa) you can be overwhelmingly disenfranchised when it comes to voting in the presidential election. Now your vote does count if the election goes contrary to the prevailing state-wide preference.

I see it as encouraging more participation. It also gives both parties more incentive to become active in areas that are otherwise considered a lock for a particular party. Such activity could help educate a given locale that heretofore has received nothing but single-party dogma.

[Unagi]

edit: To Remus...

Obviously, behind this is the concept that: The Popular Vote should determine the President.
So, first, as Defiant points out... What CT has done has just put it's stake in the ground... The agreement goes into effect only if other states follow them... Specifically only once states representing at least 270 electoral votes sign the compact.

More states could certainly join than the minimum - but once 270s worth do, then those 270+ EC votes are reflecting the Popular Vote and that's all that needed.


So, yeah... A blue-voter in a red-state is the same as a red-voter in a blue state: A Voter. They lose when their guy doesn't win the popular vote.

[Unagi]

But one question I have is - what if, after some census, those states lose some of those electoral votes and no longer have an absolute majority. Does it switch back to the current system?

Or a state could later drop out of the agreement as well, I'm sure it would be a fluid thing, but the ideal situation is that enough States do it to make it survive.

[Kraken]

So they're at 172. Left unsaid is the likelihood of getting 98 more electoral votes on board. How many other states are currently considering joining, and what are their prospects?

I also wonder about the effect on third-party votes. As a Masshole, I've long been free to vote for whomever I wish, knowing that my state will always go Democratic. I would be less likely to cast symbolic protest votes if my vote actually mattered.

[Jeff V]

But one question I have is - what if, after some census, those states lose some of those electoral votes and no longer have an absolute majority. Does it switch back to the current system?

Or a state could later drop out of the agreement as well, I'm sure it would be a fluid thing, but the ideal situation is that enough States do it to make it survive.

I don't think you'll see any red states go along with this, since they are recent beneficiaries of the status quo. Blue states could all sign on, but it will take blue control of swing states to put it over the top.

[Unagi]

Yeah, it's the purple states that will make or break this.

And, I would think they would tend toward liking the idea. Technically speaking they have (by definition of 'purple') the most contested base of voters and 'half of them' are always feeling silenced within their own state.

I don't think you'll see any red states go along with this, since they are recent beneficiaries of the status quo.

I agree. I'm guessing this idea would actually scare the pants off them.

That being said - I bet there are a TON of blue-voters in those red-states that are watching with interest.

[Unagi]

I would be less likely to cast symbolic protest votes if my vote actually mattered.

[Sepiche]

That being said - I bet there are a TON of blue-voters in those red-states that are watching with interest.

Yuuuuuuuup.

Although it's going to be a bit longer before we can break the GOP's hold enough here to pass a similar law.

[msteelers]

Yeah, it's the purple states that will make or break this.

And, I would think they would tend toward liking the idea. Technically speaking they have (by definition of 'purple') the most contested base of voters and 'half of them' are always feeling silenced within their own state.

The flip side to that is we get the most attention and have the most power. Would purple states be willing to give that up? Plus, I’ve lived my entire voting life in a state where my vote counts. It’s easy for people like me to not have any concept of the idea of living in a place where their vote really doesn’t.

I’m still all for getting rid of the electoral college, and if this is how it’s done then so be it. I just wanted to play a little devils advocate.

[Defiant]

I think it's theoretically possible for big red states (Texas?) to potentially go along with this, because, per capita, they get less of a vote than other states.

Meanwhile, purple states get an outsized influence in the election, which they would be giving up. Then again, if they do support this, they'll be bombarded by less advertising, so that might be a plus....

[Rip]

Too much pork at stake, will never happen.

[em2nought]

Y'all should go one step further and ban bacon because it offends "certain" people so we can get this war started.

[LordMortis]

I love this idea.

270 worth of states get behind this idea, and the EC is basically bi-passed by the Popular Vote victor.

I don't know if I love it but I certainly think it's not only interesting, at first glance, but it's worth examining in depth. I also think the conversation against the idea of having a president by popular vote by the "We are not a democracy" crowd would be fascinating and I pray to Pancake Almighty that such a conversation will open the door to the dismantling of gerrymandering turned from artform into Cambridge Analyica style science, which is the real problem behind all our woes and how we got to this point IMO.

I would support the idea of a popular president and concede the shift in power it brings as a silver bullet based on the twisting of the needed purpose of the House of Reps alone.

[Rip]

I wait for them to do it and then there be another candidate they hate as much as Trump who wins the pop vote but would have lost the EC if not for this law.

Priceless.

[Smoove_B]

Well something has to give. Gerrymandering aside, human populations in America (and globally) are trending away from rural and suburban into cities and I expect this is going to become more of an issue in the next ~30 years. Regardless, you'll excuse me if I don't necessarily want 50 people in Montana deciding residents of NJ shouldn't have access to women's health services by way of voting in that was rigged to disproportionately count their votes.

I am pretty curious to see how this all unfolds, for sure.

[Holman]

Y'all should go one step further and ban bacon because it offends "certain" people so we can get this war started.

1) How does this comment have anything to do with this conversation?

2) Do Islamophobic bigots really believe that bacon is someone kryptonite to Muslims more than, say, alcohol is to Mormons?

3) The fuck is wrong with you? Try to be an adult.

[LordMortis]

Well something has to give. Gerrymandering aside, human populations in America (and globally) are trending away from rural and suburban into cities and I expect this is going to become more of an issue in the next ~30 years. Regardless, you'll excuse me if I don't necessarily want 50 people in Montana deciding residents of NJ shouldn't have access to women's health services by way of voting in that was rigged to disproportionately count their votes.

I am pretty curious to see how this all unfolds, for sure.

I would have less of a problem with this if we didn't put gerrymandering aside. The House is supposed to stop the excessive authority of 50 in Montana but we broke it, so now 50 people in Montana have proper control of the Senate, excessive Control of the presidency, and could give a fuck about the house because it's broken in their favor with they myth of "policy wonk". The "power of the purse" is supposed to keep all this shit together but we let this get twisted as well.

http://history.house.gov/institution/or ... the-purse/

Get your house in order has never been more of a mandate in my lifetime, that's for sure.

[geezer]

I wait for them to do it and then there be another candidate they hate as much as Trump who wins the pop vote but would have lost the EC if not for this law.

Priceless.

Some people will always be upset, no matter what. Other people will always be eager to be assholes no matter what happens, because for them it's about schadenfreude, which may be all they have to scrape some joy from their miserable, bitter lives. Those depolorables always win, in a sense, because their "win" is other people's misery - nothing more. Those people are to be pitied.

[Jeff V]

The main problem is the EC was supposed to prevent the exact sort of shitstorm that is Trump. It failed.

Originally, electors were empowered to use their own judgement in casting their vote and could consider things not known to the general public. This was nerfed when most states went to "winner-take-all" and it's kind of been a joke ever since.

[Unagi]

I wait for them to do it and then there be another candidate they hate as much as Trump who wins the pop vote but would have lost the EC if not for this law.

Priceless.

I think you would be shocked at how many people that support this idea would accept it.


and, not that it matters - but it's increasingly unlikely to happen... The popular vote has gone in a general direction (I wouldn't even want to call it (D) ) that is NOT the direction that most (R) candidates point.

Personally, I am Thrilled if we can come up with a (President is elected like EVERY OTHER politcal position, by Popular Vote) system - and I would be much more OK with ANY outcome.

[Unagi]

The main problem is the EC was supposed to prevent the exact sort of shitstorm that is Trump. It failed.

Originally, electors were empowered to use their own judgement in casting their vote and could consider things not known to the general public. This was nerfed when most states went to "winner-take-all" and it's kind of been a joke ever since.

I understand and mostly agree with this, but it strikes me that even the original idea of the EC could easily be corrupted into (as it was) falling in line with the party's political will, etc. - and would become hot-wired by the political party in the given state. To think that only the pure and wise would be granted the EC position was probably the folly.

[Jeff V]

The main problem is the EC was supposed to prevent the exact sort of shitstorm that is Trump. It failed.

Originally, electors were empowered to use their own judgement in casting their vote and could consider things not known to the general public. This was nerfed when most states went to "winner-take-all" and it's kind of been a joke ever since.

I understand and mostly agree with this, but it strikes me that even the original idea of the EC could easily be corrupted into (as it was) falling in line with the party's political will, etc. - and would become hot-wired by the political party in the given state. To think that only the pure and wise would be granted the EC position was probably the folly.

Bear in mind when it was conceived, the country was much smaller and the key players were focused on crafting a country. They probably could not imagine political parties morphing into destructive forces like they are today (or maybe they could, but thought such measures would mitigate things).

[Smoove_B]

It would probably be more accurate to suggest they couldn't imagine a scenario where so many citizens simply didn't vote. The reasons are a whole different element, but the idea that a significant portion of the population isn't participating would have likely seemed inconceivable.

[noxiousdog]

It would probably be more accurate to suggest they couldn't imagine a scenario where so many citizens simply didn't vote. The reasons are a whole different element, but the idea that a significant portion of the population isn't participating would have likely seemed inconceivable.

They were also coming from a viewpoint more like the modern EU than the current US.

[Fireball]

I love this idea.

270 worth of states get behind this idea, and the EC is basically bi-passed by the Popular Vote victor.

Yup. It's a great way to abolish the EC.

[Fireball]

So they're at 172. Left unsaid is the likelihood of getting 98 more electoral votes on board. How many other states are currently considering joining, and what are their prospects?

I also wonder about the effect on third-party votes. As a Masshole, I've long been free to vote for whomever I wish, knowing that my state will always go Democratic. I would be less likely to cast symbolic protest votes if my vote actually mattered.

A national popular vote would likely increase the share of the vote that goes to third parties, particularly in swing states where pressure to avoid "spoiler" votes has always been stronger. I like the compact, as it gets rid of the Electoral College. I'd rather we just outright adopt the French presidential election system, if we're going to have a Presidential system. I'd far rather we just abandon our terribly-designed government and switch to a Parliamentary system like the one in Germany.

[RunningMn9]

The main problem is the EC was supposed to prevent the exact sort of shitstorm that is Trump. It failed.

Originally, electors were empowered to use their own judgement in casting their vote and could consider things not known to the general public. This was nerfed when most states went to "winner-take-all" and it's kind of been a joke ever since.

Right. If the Electoral College was designed to prevent a human pile of garbage like Trump, and it couldn't do that because we have eroded the main features designed to protect against this - how could the solution be to *further* erode the EC? The notion that the answer is to use the popular vote simply because in THIS case (in a race not run on popular vote) it would have prevented this piece of shit from winning is stupid and short-sighted.

If what you want to prevent is a piece of shit demagogue like Trump from winning, get rid of BOUND electors, and stop giving entire slates of electors to the winners of the popular vote.

Going to a straight popular vote allows a candidate to focus on a few dense population centers, and that's that. That's how civil wars start.

[Fireball]

The reason to get rid of the Electoral College is because in a democratic republic your vote should count the same as everyone else's vote. Legitimacy only derives from the consent of the people who are governed, and twice in the last five elections the presidency has gone to the person whom the people did not choose.

[Jeff V]

Going to a straight popular vote allows a candidate to focus on a few dense population centers, and that's that. That's how civil wars start.

You are assuming the deplorables would ultimately revolt. If the GOP had to focus on gaining support in big cities, do you think they would have drifted off the right edge of the world? The result, I think, would be more centrist platforms on both parties, with increased bipartisanship. The lunatic fringe on either side are not a material threat if any real power is kept far from their grasp. The current path is leading more towards civil war as both sides become more polarized and dig in.

[noxiousdog]

The reason to get rid of the Electoral College is because in a democratic republic your vote should count the same as everyone else's vote.

Democratic Republics don't even need all persons to be citizens or all citizens eligible to vote.

Legitimacy only derives from the consent of the people who are governed, and twice in the last five elections the presidency has gone to the person whom the people did not choose.

The people of Britain didn't choose the Prime Minister. Is that a problem?

[ImLawBoy]

Legitimacy only derives from the consent of the people who are governed, and twice in the last five elections the presidency has gone to the person whom the people did not choose.

The people of Britain didn't choose the Prime Minister. Is that a problem?

Apples to oranges. You have to take into account different political systems. The point is that the people of Britain didn't specifically elect a different PM than the one who took office.

[Defiant]

Legitimacy only derives from the consent of the people who are governed,

At this point, I'm up for giving it to some farcical aquatic ceremony.

[RunningMn9]

You are assuming the deplorables would ultimately revolt.

It's got nothing at all to do with deplorables. You would immediately disenfranchise all rural and most suburban America. How long do you think they'll be cool with that?