.

National Popular Vote Movement Lands in Connecticut, Again

Gov. Malloy says Connecticut should join the nine other states that have already signed on to do away with the Electoral College.

Patch File Photo
Patch File Photo

State legislators are once again talking about how to elect the President of the United States. And the conversation is centered on House Bill 5126, which would add Connecticut to a growing roster of states that support a National Popular Vote.

In other words, the Electoral College would be a thing of the past, and the president would be elected based on simple majority.

While the bill was before the Government Administration and Elections Committee of the General Assembly on Monday, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman took it as an opportunity to let their support be known.

“I fully support a national popular vote for President. All Americans deserve to have their votes counted equally for the highest office in the country,” Malloy said. “Connecticut should join the nine other states and the District of Columbia in taking this important step. The candidate who wins the most votes should be President." 

What is the Electoral College?

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) explains the Electoral College this way:

"The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.

"The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators."

Turning the Tide Away From 'Swing States'

Connecticut has 7 electoral votes. That pails in comparison to California, which has 55, or Florida, which has 27. 

“Unfortunately," Lt. Governor Nancy Wyman said, "too many presidential elections have focused on swing states, leaving a host of voters in states across the country feeling disenfranchised." 

"The United States of America is one of the most diverse countries on earth. We should take pride in our diversity by weighing each vote equally in Presidential elections,” she added.

'The fairest and most democratic way'

The effort to enact a bill supporting the National Popular Vote is nothing new in Connecticut's General Assembly. The bill has been introduced and re-introduced several times since 2007, according to the website, National Popular Vote.

In an editorial published Feb. 14, 2014, the Hartford Courant also lent its support to the bill.

"National Popular Vote advocates were back in Connecticut recently, this time to press their case with Republican leaders, most of whom have been cool to the concept," the editorial states. "We hope some minds are changed this year. The legislature will consider the issue. Connecticut should be among the states joining the National Popular Vote compact."

The Courant editorial goes on to note that a candidate has won the presidency while losing the popular vote four times, most recently in 2000, when George W. Bush narrowly defeated Al Gore. 

When enough states to represent the 270 electoral votes needed to elect the President have signed on, an inter-state compact would go into effect. If passed here, Connecticut would join 10 jurisdictions —  that together represent 136 electoral votes — that have already enacted this legislation.

States that have already signed on are: California, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

"An equal vote for every American citizen, regardless of in which state they happen to live, is the fairest and most democratic way to go,” Malloy said.

Do you support moving to a National Popular Vote? Why or why not?

Bob Cerani March 07, 2014 at 10:36 AM
Democrats have lost their Moral Compass,Whatever they had. After President Obama, they will forever be second class citizens.
Norann Dillon March 22, 2014 at 06:28 AM
National Popular Vote? No thank you. "This compact seeks to destroy the genius of the existing electoral process and federalize our presidential election." http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/250520511.html
Ed Putman March 22, 2014 at 07:53 AM
I agree, Norann, "no thank you". But the existing electoral process does not reflect the genius of the Constitution which directs the CT legislature to pick 7 electors, not 7 robots. The electors, not the general public, will cast "secret ballots". Article II, Section 1 lost its meaning in the late 1800's when political parties found a way to get around it and gave us what we have today. Electors are supposed to select the president, period. My continuing Patch blog "Electors Wanted" addresses the solution to this disgrace and you will be glad to hear the solution is not MVP.
cheryl March 22, 2014 at 08:07 AM
WTF Are we doing away with the constitution all together? WTF is wrong with these people who are in favor of this? Don't these people remember who fought and died due to the freedom that this magnificent document provides. Have we gotten so far away from the American principles and natures law now it becomes laws of MAN. And you know how flawed man is. WTF? Smarten up before you end up in real tranny cuz that's what happens when the masses have NO guns, No constitution. What's the matter with you people?
Porter gladstone March 22, 2014 at 11:20 AM
Cheryl, the problem with your argument is that the Constitution includes the concept to have it amended. The Founding Fathers understood that with changing times, you need an ability to amend. They also understood human nature and it's self-centeredness and power hungry element. Thus the "balance of powers" which this President has eroded, but Bush did just as much. If we want the Country to remain strong and not a Kingdom or a Dictatorship, we need a stronger media. One that doesnt pander to the Democrats and their plight to denigrate the House (when it's run by opposing party). Obama's agenda is not in synch with the entire country. That's why we have elections. Thats where the Democrats who correctly note that "elections have consequences' when they win (the White House) also have the consequences to deal with in Governors and House of Reprsentatives. Bill, above spoke incessantly about his revulsion to gerrymandering- in Republican States. But chose to accept and rationalize gerrymandering in Democratic states. I dont think it's "unamerican " to want a national popular vote. But the slimey manipulative tactics of the left lead me to naurally oppose it. The left has adopted a very biased, xenophobic view of America. You can say "I want Hillary for Pres because she is a WOMAN, but if my reasoning for voting for Rand Paul came down to " He is a man," I'd be attacked for being a chauvanist or a mysogynist etc. The war on women plank would take hold. It's very annoying that their arrogance allows them to believe that their choices of who can and cannot be attacked (evangelicals, the rich, Catholics, for example) are absolutes. but I digress. The Constitution is amendable--but the argument that it's to counterweight republiccan gerrymandering is simply dishonest.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »