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

Cypress said:
I have always hated the undemocratic and archaic EC. As far back as I can remember.

Even in 2000, when it looked like a real possibility that Gore might win the EC while losing the popular vote - I thought the possibility of that happening was totally unfair and undemocratic.

There are no plausible excuses for the EC. The only reason for even considering having it, is to maintain a safety valve to prevent a maniac, a dangerously unqualified person, or an obese and dim-witted Reality TV star from fluking their way into the White House. The EC could not even manage to do that job correctly.

One American, one vote. Simple. Fair, Democratic.

The rural states already have wildly disproportionate representation at the federal level, through the institution of the U.S. Senate.

The congress has always had the power to remove criminal, insane, mentally incapacitated, or dangerously incompetent chumps through their existing constitutional authorities. The EC is irrelevant in that context.
Click to expand...

304 - 227. Hillary got her ass kicked where it mattered. In the ELECTORAL COLLEGE.
 
floridafan said:
You are so full of shit, don't even bother to respond.
Click to expand...

What's shitty is you attempting to undermine basic civil liberties by claiming the Minutemen existed to subjugate black slaves, and that the entire history of the 2nd Amendment is racism. Why do you hate America?
 
CFM said:
If you look at the states listed, all went for Hillary in 2016. The only difference would have been Hillary receiving 232 instead of 227 due to the faithless electors in Washington and Hawaii. She still would have had her ass kicked only 304 - 232 would have been the score.
Click to expand...

Yet Hillary had 3 million more votes. The majority of people picking the president should be fundamental. it is only in case of the presidency that the EC can steal the vote from the majority. If you think the majority rules is correct,you will back this. It makes sense and is one of our fundamental principles.
 
Cypress said:
I have always hated the undemocratic and archaic EC. As far back as I can remember.

Even in 2000, when it looked like a real possibility that Gore might win the EC while losing the popular vote - I thought the possibility of that happening was totally unfair and undemocratic.

There are no plausible excuses for the EC. The only reason for even considering having it, is to maintain a safety valve to prevent a maniac, a dangerously unqualified person, or an obese and dim-witted Reality TV star from fluking their way into the White House. The EC could not even manage to do that job correctly.

One American, one vote. Simple. Fair, Democratic.

The rural states already have wildly disproportionate representation at the federal level, through the institution of the U.S. Senate.

The congress has always had the power to remove criminal, insane, mentally incapacitated, or dangerously incompetent chumps through their existing constitutional authorities. The EC is irrelevant in that context.
Click to expand...
True...but that's the argument for the EC. Bigger states would have more representation than smaller states. In theory. But..we're seeing states choose to play with their EC votes any way they wish, so maybe things will change.
 
I support this, but it's not the best way to do it.

I am for anything which improves the current situation.

This is just an end-run around the EC.

The EC does serve a good purpose, but the problem is most States have a winner-takes-all policy. That's ridiculous. That means a candidate only needs to barely win just the crucial biggest States. All the votes against that candidate from those most populous States are then essentially discarded. That's why we see exactly what the EC was supposed to prevent: campaigning in the crucial States only and skipping the fly-over States.

The executive is President of the union of the States. The States elect the President. But nothing in the Constitution says the States have to go with winner-takes-all. And not all States do.

I think the way to do it is to scrap the winner-takes-all practice.

If a State such as Florida is almost evenly split, it should not decide the election by casting all it's votes for one candidate. That is not representative of the people or the vote.

Some States don't do a very good job of certifying the integrity of their elections, either.

Florida Sec of State has the power to delete legal voters from the rolls. This was done in the 2000 election and continues. Far more Democratic voters were illegally purged from voter rolls than Republican. This alone would have changed the outcome of that one election. Gore should have been our president in 2000.

Florida is one of only a few States to punish felons for life by never returning their right to vote, ever, even after they have served their time and been released as free men. Free men and citizens of the USA who then have no right to vote. It's too easy for the Republicans to force their way on everybody else under this policy. It is well known most felons are black and blacks vote more frequently Democratic. So we have one State making up their own rules which affect the whole country.

That's not right and it is not representative of We the People.
 
Last edited:
Nordberg said:
Yet Hillary had 3 million more votes. The majority of people picking the president should be fundamental. it is only in case of the presidency that the EC can steal the vote from the majority. If you think the majority rules is correct,you will back this. It makes sense and is one of our fundamental principles.
Click to expand...
Majority rule has been shown to be a disadvantage in society. I believe our checks/balances aim to avoid just that whenever possible. 95% of military voted against allowing black soldiers to serve next to white soldiers. There are quite a few examples of the flaws of majority rule throughout our history.

Truth is, the idea is to get people out to vote. 40% of eligible voters opted not to in '16
 
PoliTalker said:
I support this, but it's not the best way to do it.

I am for anything which improves the current situation.

This is just an end-run around the EC.

The EC does serve a good purpose, but the problem is most States have a winner-takes-all policy. That's ridiculous. That means a candidate only needs to barely win just the crucial biggest States. All the votes against that candidate from those most populous States are then essentially discarded. That's why we see exactly what they EC was supposed to prevent: campaigning in the crucial States only and skipping the fly-over States.

The executive is President of the union of the States. The States elect the President. But nothing in the Constitution says the States have to go with winner-takes-all. And not all States do.

I think the way to do it is to scrap the winner-takes-all practice.

If a State such as Florida is almost evenly split, it should not decide the election by casting all it's votes for one candidate. That is not representative of the people or the vote.

Some States don't do a very good job of certifying the integrity of their elections, either.

Florida Sec of State has the power to delete legal voters from the rolls. This was done in the 2000 election and continues. Far more Democratic voters were illegally purged from voter rolls than Republican. This alone would have changed the outcome of that one election. Gore should have been our president in 2000.

Florida is one of only a few States to punish felons for life by never returning their right to vote, ever, even after they have served their time and been released as free men. Free men and citizens of the USA who then have no right to vote. It's too easy for the Republicans to force their way on everybody else under this policy. It is well known most felons are black and blacks vote more frequently Democratic. So we have one State making up their own rules which affect the whole country.

That's not right and it is not representative of We the People.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you here. Proportion the number delegates to the proportion of how the states vote seems fair. But the EC is what it is and that won't change anytime soon regardless of what some extremist blue states are trying to do. It can only hurt them, can't really help them since they always vote the same way anyway.
You could've put Josef Stalin as the nominee for the dims and those 11 states and D.C. still would've voted for him against Trump.
 
CharacterAssassin said:
LOL! What, THAT'S supposed to be a 'step towards a civil war'?

Not to any sober, rational adult.

Sorry, that's simply not a reasonable assessment of anything.
Click to expand...

said by a die hard communist seeking liberal........keep pushing....you have no clue about the heartbeat of america and how much they hate both you leftists and rightists
 
floridafan said:
You failed to mention 21% of the American public, asshole. That includes republicans. No where does the second amendment guarantee the use of AR=-15's. In fact even the Supreme Court agreed that they can be regulated, cunt face.
Click to expand...

the supreme court is a bunch of anti constitutional fuckwits whose only goal is to increase the federal governments power, and yes, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the possession and use of machine guns, RPGs, grenades, and any other fucking weapon that the government would and could use against a free state.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the supreme court is a bunch of anti constitutional fuckwits whose only goal is to increase the federal governments power, and yes, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the possession and use of machine guns, RPGs, grenades, and any other fucking weapon that the government would and could use against a free state.
Click to expand...

I read the second and missed the mentioning of machine guns and RPGs. More likely they were talking about flintlocks and muskets.
 
Threedee said:
1) Republicans are very pro-2nd Amendment
2) The founders were clear that the 2nd Amendment was written so the people could overthrow the government. The movement to ban automatic weapons, and now semiautomatic weapons (like the AR-15), clearly violate the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

Do you imagine the people can over throw our govt with the paltry arsenal we collectively own when half the world wouldn't take us on?
 
Nordberg said:
I read the second and missed the mentioning of machine guns and RPGs. More likely they were talking about flintlocks and muskets.
Click to expand...

"A well-regulated militia" is not going to be equipping itself with those weapons. "The security of a free State," is neither going to be secure nor free if the people equip themselves with those weapons. When I did my weapons training at Lackland AFB in 2004, the course instructors could have said, "oh, and for those of you who are guard, we're going to have you fire the musket instead of the M-16," but, they didn't. I fired the M-16 along with all the active duty and reservists.
 
Gotcha68 said:
Do you imagine the people can over throw our govt with the paltry arsenal we collectively own when half the world wouldn't take us on?
Click to expand...

Well, Lord Cornwalis, we're but farmers with pitchforks. Also, the rest of the world are not Americans. Funny how you can tell the leftists based upon their faith in the state over the citizenry.
 
Nordberg said:
Yet Hillary had 3 million more votes. The majority of people picking the president should be fundamental. it is only in case of the presidency that the EC can steal the vote from the majority. If you think the majority rules is correct,you will back this. It makes sense and is one of our fundamental principles.
Click to expand...

Yet that still doesn't matter under the current system.

We're not a direct democracy, boy. If you understood that, you'd accept the EC whether you agreed with the results or not.
 
Nordberg said:
I read the second and missed the mentioning of machine guns and RPGs. More likely they were talking about flintlocks and muskets.
Click to expand...

that same bullshit canard? so computers and cell phones aren't protected by the 4th? or the 1st?

MORON!!!!! the 2nd was to ensure that the populace would ALWAYS be equally armed as the government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top