Connecticut has decided NY & California should elect our president

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Haven

    Network Warlord
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Nov 6, 2016
    3,253
    113
    Camby Area
    Ok, not quite, but Connecticut has a bill that will put their electoral votes for for whoever wins the popular vote.

    NPR Article on this:

    https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...ectoral-votes-to-national-popular-vote-winner

    Connecticut signs on with California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington state, along with Washington, D.C to do the same. This brings the total to 172 electoral votes, just 100 votes away from effectively ending the Electoral College.

    My opinion is this is wrong. This abdicates voting responsabilities to around 20 metropolitan areas in the United States, or around 18 states. This means that people in 32 states would have no say in the President.
     

    Tombs

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    12,022
    113
    Martinsville
    A bunch of democrat cities try to gerrymander the electoral college to only elect their candidates.

    Color me unsurprised.

    Each county in the country should be worth 1 electoral college vote. Cities don't need control of the federal government for representation, they have well funded and massive local governments to do as they please with. Forcing their will on the rest of the country is abhorrent.

    This would also force presidential elections to be representative of all classes of people to win an election, instead of just pandering to major population centers and throwing the rest of the country in the trash.
     

    easy

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 11, 2010
    707
    18
    SEOK
    Mob rule = democracy. Democracy is the rule of all by 50%+1(mob). So don't look so surprized.
     

    Reagan40

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Dec 30, 2013
    437
    28
    too far from nature
    So basically, states whose electoral college votes that nearly always go to the democrats now want their votes to go to whomever wins the popular vote. So, let’s just say that Trump wins the popular vote next time. All their EC votes would then go to Trump. Or if a Democrat wins the popular vote, the democrat gets their EC votes, which they likely would have won them anyway. So, either nothing changes, or the republican wins in an EC blow out!
     

    MinuteManMike

    Expert
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Oct 28, 2008
    1,062
    83
    Lawrence, IN
    From the NPR piece:
    "Criticism of the Electoral College system has increased in recent years, after two presidential candidates — Democrats Al Gore in 2000 and Hillary Clinton in 2016 — won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote."

    Yeah, except only VOTER FRAUD helped them "win" the popular vote nationally.

    Purge and audit voter rolls... it's WELL past time. And I do believe the INSANE, IDIOTIC consent decree the Repukes signed over 3 decades ago has expired so it could actually happen now!
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    From the NPR piece:
    "Criticism of the Electoral College system has increased in recent years, after two presidential candidates — Democrats Al Gore in 2000 and Hillary Clinton in 2016 — won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote."

    Yeah, except only VOTER FRAUD helped them "win" the popular vote nationally.

    Purge and audit voter rolls... it's WELL past time. And I do believe the INSANE, IDIOTIC consent decree the Repukes signed over 3 decades ago has expired so it could actually happen now!

    There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Technically it's impossible to prove one way or another, since it wouldn't be very good voter fraud if it were found. And even if what you propose is true, it defaults to one side being more guilty of it, than the other, which seems to be more based on bias confirmation than fact.
     

    MCgrease08

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    37   0   0
    Mar 14, 2013
    14,374
    149
    Earth
    The left is just throwing **** against the wall and trying to get something, anything to stick. It's just so transparent and pathetic.

    The tragic part is that so many useful idiots buy into it.
     

    phylodog

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    59   0   0
    Mar 7, 2008
    18,752
    113
    Arcadia
    Ok, they win, they don't want to play by the rules as originally intended then their votes no longer count. Screw em. If the responsibility to engage as participants of the system as designed is too muc of a burden then they can sit on the sidelines and suck it.
     

    edporch

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    25   0   0
    Oct 19, 2010
    4,663
    149
    Indianapolis
    They keep talking about the "popular vote".

    EACH state has a popular vote election for President in that state and their Electoral Votes make sure that each state has the SAME proportion of representation in choosing the President as each state has in the House of Representatives.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,070
    77
    Southside Indy
    One of the arguments I saw put forth for this was that states with lower populations have too much power with the electoral college system. So basically, this would mean that they would go from (allegedly) having "too much" power to having absolutely none, since only the votes from the most populous states (which happen to be blue states) would be counted, if enough of them sign on. And they say requiring id to vote disenfranchises voters?? Pfft...
     

    rob63

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    May 9, 2013
    4,282
    77
    It will be interesting to see if it has any impact on voter turnout in those states. It might provide incentive for people that otherwise know their vote is going to waste, but who knows?

    There is also the unknown factor of how much it would affect how a campaign is run. It gives incentive to run more of a national campaign, rather than spending so much time in the battleground states.

    It is entirely possible it will have an effect entirely unlike what they thought it would.
     

    WebSnyper

    Maximum Effort
    Rating - 100%
    56   0   0
    Jul 3, 2010
    15,419
    113
    127.0.0.1
    Ok, they win, they don't want to play by the rules as originally intended then their votes no longer count. Screw em. If the responsibility to engage as participants of the system as designed is too muc of a burden then they can sit on the sidelines and suck it.

    Pretty much my opinion. How do they just give up entirely any "say" they would have and do this. Seems that this basically tells their population that your vote doesn't count.

    They keep talking about the "popular vote".

    EACH state has a popular vote election for President in that state and their Electoral Votes make sure that each state has the SAME proportion of representation in choosing the President as each state has in the House of Representatives.

    Which they are now giving up it seems.
     

    WebSnyper

    Maximum Effort
    Rating - 100%
    56   0   0
    Jul 3, 2010
    15,419
    113
    127.0.0.1
    There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Technically it's impossible to prove one way or another, since it wouldn't be very good voter fraud if it were found. And even if what you propose is true, it defaults to one side being more guilty of it, than the other, which seems to be more based on bias confirmation than fact.

    That's an interesting statement to make... I don't think it's impossible to find it (at least in some cases, and could be a bit easier to find if it required as much of a process to do as our govt seems to impose on exercising other rights) ... but your argument is that if it was found, then it wouldn't be good voter fraud, does that mean it did not happen? Seems a bit circular.
     

    K_W

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Aug 14, 2008
    5,385
    63
    Indy / Carmel
    They're only doing this because Bush2 and Trump won "but lost".

    If Kerry and H Clinton had won "but lost" it would be "this is how the system works, deal with it."
     
    Top Bottom