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

Awesome, widespread voter fraud. More illegals and dead people voting Democratic than ever before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

apparently, there have to be enough states doing this for this to take effect.

The compact requires its members to cast their Electoral College ballots for the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. The agreement goes into effect once states representing at least 270 electoral votes — the number needed for a candidate to win the presidency — signs the compact.

Click to expand...

and the idea that there was widespread illegal voting for democrats is a trump lie

92tide said:

and the idea that there was widespread illegal voting for democrats is a trump lie

Click to expand...

Everything is a fact if you feel it's a fact strongly enough.

MattinBama said:

Everything is a fact if you feel it's a fact strongly enough.

Click to expand...

It will be fun to watch when this back fires

Eventually, there will be an EC victory by Democrats while losing the popular vote.

At that time, you will see a mass change in thinking among Republicans.

In the same way that coaches think that teams should win conference championships in order to qualify for the playoffs. Until they go 11-1 and fail to make the conference championship game.

CajunCrimson said:

What the left doesn't understand -- is that there are hundreds of thousands who don't vote in many blue states....simply because they don't see the need if a certain candidate is going to carry the state. But, if it ends up being a "national vote" winner gets the electoral votes -- you will see many more people voting in blue states by conservatives.....that tend to just stay home.

Not sure the left understands what they are getting themselves into....

I'm fine with it..... in an effort to minimize flyover country -- they are going to set themselves up for a broken heart....

Click to expand...

You could make the same argument that a lot of people don’t vote in red states for the same reason.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Crimson1967 said:

You could make the same argument that a lot of people don’t vote in red states for the same reason.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

You could also make the argument that a lot of liberals don't vote in a state like Maryland because they know their state is more than likely to vote the same way as them anyway.

Tidewater said:

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

Connecticut leading by example, I guess. Nothing unconstitutional about this, if that is how Connecticut wants to award her EC votes (which means a federal court will probably strike it down as somehow unconstitutional)

If a Republican wins the popular vote while a Democrat wins the state vote, I'd bet the state legislature comes under pressure to undo this.

Click to expand...

This will be insanely funny if we have a 2000 election again (in reverse) and it winds up tipping the election to the GOP.

I’ve watched too much politics and college football to realize this may have incredible unintended consequences that being about the result you’re trying to avoid.

Southern white Democrats kept getting mad at the liberals nominated by the national party (Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale) so they created Super Tuesday for 1988. And what happened? The two moderates (Gore and Gephart) split the white centrist vote, Dukakis got the white liberals, Jesse Jackson won six Southern states when he carried the black vote in major proportions.....and it eliminated both centrists and gave Dukakis the nomination.

It also ended the Republican competition and gave Bush two extra months to prep for the fall.

I think it was Tom Murphy who said, “The Southern primary is going to elect the next President of the United States.” Well, he was right...but not in the way intended.

I think it's all whistling in the dark to say stuff one way or the other. A lot of folks in Texas don't vote simply because it's a red state and the outcome is predetermined. A minimally competent person who has spent five minutes look at the electoral map can get 40 states right in the election without really knowing anything at all about handicapping elections.

The whole popular vote/Electoral College thing is such a non-entity and non-issue as to be ridiculous, and I confess amusement at places that were mocking red states not all that long ago (like TX threatening secession) NOW all of a sudden throwing the same childish hissy fit because their candidate lost.

The whole problem with the concept of "candidate X won the popular vote" - as if some injustice has occurred - is the simple fact that if we did not have the Electoral College then campaign plans would be totally different. You cannot ASSUME that just because Hillary got more votes than Trump nationwide that she would necessarily have won had there been no EC - for the simple reason that if popular votes mattered then Republicans would spend more time in places like California and New York in attempts to offset the margin (and likewise the Democrat would spend more time in the South).


I just find the hissy fit throwing hilarious. It wasn't that long ago that throwing a hissy fit over the last election meant you were a (gasp) racist.

Honest to God: I sincerely hope that Connecticut winds up throwing an election to (presumably at this point - things can change) a Republican who wins the popular vote even though the Democrat would have won the election with their electoral votes.


Just look at the margins in CT:

Hillary beat Trump by 14
Obama beat Romney (former MA governor no less) by 18 points
Obama beat McCain by 22
Kerry beat Bush by 11
Gore beat Bush (whose grandfather was a CT Senator) by 17
Clinton beat Dole by 18 and Daddy Bush by 7 (note: Perot got almost 22% of the vote in CT in 1992)


So yeah, this could be funny since it ASSUMES the Republicans will never again win the popular vote. That's funny......just two years ago, "we may never have a Republican President due to changing demographics."

AlexanderFan said:

Awesome, widespread voter fraud. More illegals and dead people voting Democratic than ever before.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/03/10/thousands-of-u-s-workers-older-than-100-that-might-be-social-security-fraud/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.00b8bb2ed62a

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/03/10/392112708/6-5-million-social-security-numbers-linked-to-those-112-or-older

SSA Admits that at least 6.5 Million Americans OVER the age of 112 are still getting benefits. Both NPR and WaPo both have reported this, so we can rest assured it MUST be true, right?

But have no fear! Rest assured that NONE of those active Benefits recipients are also VOTING, right?

Funny thing is - if you look at the past 8-10 presidential Elections, and you add up the difference in the Popular Vote totals. Guess what? In MOST of these elections (all but 2-3) the MARGIN in the popular vote was less than 6 Million.

Go Figure!!

TomFromBama said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/03/10/thousands-of-u-s-workers-older-than-100-that-might-be-social-security-fraud/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.00b8bb2ed62a

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/03/10/392112708/6-5-million-social-security-numbers-linked-to-those-112-or-older

SSA Admits that at least 6.5 Million Americans OVER the age of 112 are still getting benefits. Both NPR and WaPo both have reported this, so we can rest assured it MUST be true, right?

Click to expand...

Neither of those links showed that 6.5 million Americans over the age of 112 are still getting benefits. You're off by several orders of magnitude.

TomFromBama said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/03/10/thousands-of-u-s-workers-older-than-100-that-might-be-social-security-fraud/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.00b8bb2ed62a

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/03/10/392112708/6-5-million-social-security-numbers-linked-to-those-112-or-older

SSA Admits that at least 6.5 Million Americans OVER the age of 112 are still getting benefits. Both NPR and WaPo both have reported this, so we can rest assured it MUST be true, right?

But have no fear! Rest assured that NONE of those active Benefits recipients are also VOTING, right?

Funny thing is - if you look at the past 8-10 presidential Elections, and you add up the difference in the Popular Vote totals. Guess what? In MOST of these elections (all but 2-3) the MARGIN in the popular vote was less than 6 Million.

Go Figure!!

Click to expand...

nothing in either article implies that benefits are being given for anywhere near all of the 6.5 million numbers, just that they are still active. apparently around 67 k of the numbers were used to report wages and around 3,900 were used through the e-verify system.

This is going to be so funny if the Republicans lose key states but win the popular vote. The only way this works in these states favor is if they get 270 electoral votes from states behind this. I’ll give that a less than .01 chance of happening