Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Connecticut lawmakers pass measure to give electoral votes to presidential candidate who
The Hill ^ | April 26, 2018 | JACQUELINE THOMSEN

Posted on 04/27/2018 4:30:42 PM PDT by lowbridge

The Connecticut state House passed a measure Thursday that would give the state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who won the popular vote, if enough states promise to do the same.

The bill would have the state join an interstate compact that grants participating states’ votes to candidates who win the popular vote, the Hartford Courant reported.

However, the compact doesn’t go into effect until enough states join for the group to have 270 electoral votes — the amount a presidential candidate must earn to win the Electoral College. 

Ten states have joined the group so far, representing a total of 165 electoral votes. 

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Connecticut
KEYWORDS: connecticut; electoralvotes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: MrEdd

If enacted though this would completely eliminate the winner being based on the electoral vote process. Because with 270 electoral votes it means that the law of the land would then be that the winner is by popular vote. This completely negates the constitutions intentions. It seems like a form of collusion between the states involved in order to subvert the constitution. In that way it is kind of a bit like Rico.


21 posted on 04/27/2018 4:56:06 PM PDT by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

So they want majority rules when it would give the Democrat the win and electoral college rules when that way would give the Democrat the win.


22 posted on 04/27/2018 4:57:05 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (<img src="http://i.imgur.com/WukZwJP.gif" width=800>https://i.imgur.com/zXSEP5Z.gif)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine
It's also completely unenforceable.

If Election Day is on November 6th (for example) and the Electoral College doesn't meet until mid-December, then any state that joins this "compact" has more than a month for their legislature to pass a statute that withdraws the state from the agreement.

Since none of this is binding under Federal law, no state has the power to enforce such an agreement with any other state.

In other words, it's all just theatrics ... carried out by state legislators who are so useless they have to make up sh!t like this to fill their days.

23 posted on 04/27/2018 4:57:45 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
I still don't understand how any of this is legal and/or constitutional. I believe that the constitution clearly says that:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

To me, this means that each state must determine the method of appointing the electors independently from the other states and voters.

This would make Connecticut electors completely dependent on the actions of the legislators and voters in other states.

Or did I miss something.....

24 posted on 04/27/2018 4:59:36 PM PDT by DarthFuzball ("Life is full of little surprises." - Pandora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob

‘I also don’t think that awarding electors based on the voting in other states meets the guarantee of republican government to the states.’

as has been stated before, the states are granted the right to choose the electors for the presidency as each state sees fit...this doesn’t circumvent that...


25 posted on 04/27/2018 5:00:08 PM PDT by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: unread

> Wouldn’t they be, in fact, ripping off the voters in their own State..?? <

The Constitution gives the states great freedom on how they can award their electoral votes. But yeah, you’re right. Voters in a state might go, say, 60 % for candidate A. And yet 100% of the state’s electoral votes could be given to candidate B.

It’s so obviously unfair that only a liberal would think of it.


26 posted on 04/27/2018 5:02:34 PM PDT by Leaning Right (I have already previewed or do not wish to preview this composition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: unread

’ I don’t think that would go over too good...’

except the voters would have voted for the state legislators who okayed the proposition; they can blame themselves...


27 posted on 04/27/2018 5:04:41 PM PDT by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Yes it will and yes it can.

A GOP candidate can win CT. Trump should have campaigned more heavily in CT, especially in places like Litchfield County and Fairfield County.

A GOP candidate CAN win CT at the right circumstances!!!

Yes, a GOPer can win CT!!!


28 posted on 04/27/2018 5:08:01 PM PDT by GuavaCheesePuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Yup.

If a Republican happened to win the popular vote and let’s say Blue States had to give the EV to the popular winner under the compact, they could withdraw from it before the Electoral College met.

Its political theatrics and meaningless. Democrats have no intention of ever legitimating a Republican victor. Any one who thinks they’re trying to protect democracy are living in a dream world.

This “compact” is valid for Democrats only. That’s why they can pass it in the knowledge they can undo it if it ever led to the opposite result.

That’s why its a liberal political con job.


29 posted on 04/27/2018 5:09:19 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Crucial
Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

More follows in the Article detailing specifics if you care to read it.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-ii

30 posted on 04/27/2018 5:10:22 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

The state has the right to do that. And we will end up with 2000 every four years.

It’s a good thing the founding fathers were morons. //sarc


31 posted on 04/27/2018 5:14:42 PM PDT by Vermont Lt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

So...the will of Connecticut voters can be countermanded and their Electoral College votes go to whoever won the most votes (however those are determined) across the country?


32 posted on 04/27/2018 5:15:49 PM PDT by BradyLS (DO NOT FEED THE BEARS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

The age old problem with direct participatory democracy is that it gives birth to Democrats who then manipulate it into
the tyranny of a makeshift majority.


33 posted on 04/27/2018 5:18:26 PM PDT by chuckee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crucial

The way things are going, America will fall apart as the former Soviet Union did if we are lucky. The worst case is a civil war. America as founded is no more.


34 posted on 04/27/2018 5:19:14 PM PDT by shanover (...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.-S.Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

If the Dems can’t win it they’ll rig it


35 posted on 04/27/2018 5:28:36 PM PDT by butlerweave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crucial

States can choose to award their electors in any fashion they see fit. The idiocy of this plan is to make their own state’s majority meaningless. The small state of Connecticut is going to have its electors subject to larger states voters.

Dumb.


36 posted on 04/27/2018 5:33:12 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

So they are going to ignore the will and votes of their own citizens?


37 posted on 04/27/2018 5:35:06 PM PDT by Fido969 (In!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

I think red states need to change their laws: The Democrat must win by 100% to receive any electoral votes.


38 posted on 04/27/2018 5:35:44 PM PDT by CodeToad (The Democrats haven't been this pissed off since the Republicans took their slaves away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge; All
The states prohibited themselves from establishing such winner-take-all electoral vote laws imo when they ratified the 12th Amendment.
Excerpted from 12th Amendment: "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice- President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; …"

Corrections, insights welcome.

39 posted on 04/27/2018 5:41:11 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
This will last until one or both of two things happen: (1) a candidate wins Connecticut by a wide margin, but loses the popular vote in the "allied" states, and the Connecticut voters find their electoral votes going to the candidate that lost in their state; or (2) one of the consortium decides to renege on the deal. It is entirely likely that if (1) does happen, (2) will follow shortly.

As others have pointed out, it is within the power of the state governments to do this. It will be fun to watch the bodies bounce if they do and the inevitable happens.

40 posted on 04/27/2018 5:43:26 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson