Blue states rally to upend Electoral College, with addition of Connecticut

Connecticut is joining a growing alliance of liberal states in a "pact" that would supposedly allow them to change the way presidents are picked -- by allocating each state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

The uphill campaign, which if ever brought to fruition would almost certainly face a court challenge, has gained renewed attention amid Democratic grumbling about the Electoral College in the wake of President Trump's 2016 win. While he defeated Hillary Clinton in the electoral vote, he lost the popular vote by 2.9 million ballots.

Enter the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which blue states are joining to commit to allocating their electoral votes to the national popular-vote winner -- regardless of their own state results.

The pact is meant to be a work-around to the constitutional requirements that created the Electoral College system, which awards each state's electors to the winner of that state.

Source: Blue states rally to upend Electoral College, with addition of Connecticut

So, it seems the Democrats want to toss out the will of their state voters in favor of siding with a popular national vote? Seriously? This is such an asinine movement, and quite possibly unconstitutional. Why am I not surprised that the party of "By Any Means Necessary" is taking this approach to circumvent our Constitution.

This is disgusting, and wreaks of sour grapes and a temper tantrum over losing the recent presidential election.

They can do this via a Constitutional amendment.

They try to hijack the voting voice of the entire middle of the country it won't end well.

Liberals are just itching to cause a civil war.

originally posted by: projectvxn
They can do this via a Constitutional amendment.

They try to hijack the voting voice of the entire middle of the country it won't end well.

Liberals are just itching to cause a civil war.

A legal way of doing it would be both a long haul and difficult if not impossible to pass, and they know it. So, they resort to attempts of bypassing the laws because, Trump won. They cannot accept that their anointed queen has fallen.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Up to the states how they want to allocate their delegates. Though you would think people in the state would be uncomfortable allowing election results in their state being overturned. But that is an issue to be handled by state legislatures.

If the rules don't suit ya, change em.

That is so wrong. The people of every state need to be heard in the election, not just bow to the most populated areas of the country. These super populations will wind up enslaving everyone else, Our votes will not get heard properly. I actually like the system we have now, quite a few of the presidents have lost the popular but got elected anyway. Even small population states need to be heard.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Krakatoa

Up to the states how they want to allocate their delegates. Though you would think people in the state would be uncomfortable allowing election results in their state being overturned. But that is an issue to be handled by state legislatures.

Not when it involves a conspiracy between external states to override the voters of their own state.

a reply to: Krakatoa

So if the people of the state want someone other than who the state leadership wants, it's too bad?

Basically state leadership determining who gets to be president based on votes in New York and California.

Didnt it pay off for them in 2012?

in a case like this, it begs the question, why vote?

Its crazy, but as I understand it the states get to decide how you allocate the electoral college votes.

If I was a citizen there I would be irate, to me that is saying your vote does not matter and we don't care that you know.

To me it goes against everything are system was set up to support that you the individual is supposed to matter.

But for now that's for the nut cases in Conn to wrestle with.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Krakatoa

Up to the states how they want to allocate their delegates. Though you would think people in the state would be uncomfortable allowing election results in their state being overturned. But that is an issue to be handled by state legislatures.

Not when it involves a conspiracy between external states to override the voters of their own state.

The Constitution specifies that each state legislature individually determines its own process for appointing electors. Meaning each state can choose how they elect delegates. The constitution leaves that to the state and they can make any rules they wish could just hold a lottery for example.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Krakatoa

Up to the states how they want to allocate their delegates. Though you would think people in the state would be uncomfortable allowing election results in their state being overturned. But that is an issue to be handled by state legislatures.

Yeah, I have to think this agreement would fall apart the first time a state was forced to award its delegates against the will of its own voters.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Actually it does. You vote in your state, your state goes to 'person' then your states EC 'votes' go to that person.

We're citizens of our own states, first. Our states are members of the Union. Everyone forgets that. Then there's the part where these lib's want NYC, Chicago & Californian cities effectively deciding every election for the rest of US. F them.

a reply to: Krakatoa


Mob rule is Awesome! "BURN THE WITCH!".

Remember the days of Satanic Panic where listening to Heavy Metal meant you worshipped Satan? My how the roles have changed....

How about this: change it by amendment.

They can get 2/3 of legislature to vote for it.

Then, they can get 3/4 of the states to ratify it.

Afterwards, they can win the Civil War that they start with the adoption of this new amendment.

Then, maybe, it'll happen.

Big deal. This will blow up in their faces just like all their hairbrained schemes. They'll end up having a GOP candidate have a majority of the popular vote and their own candidate winning the electoral college. Libs should change their mascot to Wile E Coyote

a reply to: DBCowboy

that's actually is what the EC is for. Giving the people the illusion of a vote, but keeping the vote with the ruling class.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I'm all for this. All those blue states are going to get a rude awakening when they depress the vote in their own state, and cause a republican to win the popular vote and you have the Largest Republican Electoral Landslide in history.

I find it amusing that the people wishing to abolish the Electoral College, are also the same people that seem to have no problem with Super Delegates.