Gov. Malloy Supports Bill To Elect President By Popular Vote

  • Comments (19)
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy supports a bill that would elect the president by a national popular vote instead of through the electoral college.
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy supports a bill that would elect the president by a national popular vote instead of through the electoral college. Photo Credit: File

FAIRFIELD COUNTY, Conn. -- A proposal to elect the president by a national popular vote has the support of Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman. 

“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 in a statement. “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. 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.”

When enough states to represent the 270 electoral votes needed to elect the president have signed on, an inter-state compact will go into effect. Connecticut would join 10 other jurisdictions that have already enacted this legislation, currently representing 136 electoral votes of the requisite 270 necessary to elect a president.

The other jurisdictions are: California, Washington, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland., New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. 

Lt. Governor Nancy Wyman said, “Unfortunately, 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.”

The proposed legislation is HB 5126, An Act Concerning an Agreement Among the States to Elect The President of the United States by National Popular Vote. The state's Government Administration and Elections Committee held a public hearing last week in Hartford on the proposal. 

Read more about the proposed legislation here

  • 19
    Comments

Comments (19)

Well all this is nice and truly supported by all the Obamabots, but it still flies in the face of the US Constitution.

Right now, the 'people' elect their US House members, and thanks to a Constitutional Amendment, elect their Senators (originally sent to Washington by the state legislatures to represent the best interest of the states - which no longer exists). This amounts to 'mob rule', based on the 'feelings' of the moment. We passed ObamaCare without Congressional due process or thorough thought, and look what we got!

Electing the President by popular vote is just one more step down the road that has produced results with unintended consequences.

One question: if we can elect the President through popular vote, can we also impeach the President this was also? Based on that right now, Obama would be GONE! Is that what people want?

Thank You president Obama for not being like the village idiot republican war criminal Bush and starting 2 wars on lies and on credit . The war criminal Bush is responsible for the deaths of thousands of our military.
Thanks Robbie

Maybe Putin wouldn't be pulling this stunt if we had a real President,instead of the feckless twerp we have now.

National Popular Vote did not invent popular elections. Having election results determined by the candidate getting the most individual votes is not some scary, untested idea loaded with unintended consequences. This bill does not eliminate the Electoral College, it does not overlook any state, it does not disenfranchise voters, it does not cancel votes, it does not negate votes, it does not steal votes, nor does it ignore votes. It does not force the U.S. to completely change its government. It gives a voice to the minority party in states where their votes now count only for candidates they did not vote for. Votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state will not be wasted and will matter to candidates.

It adds up votes of all voters in each state and the candidate with the most popular votes from the states wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Now voters in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, get disproportionate attention from presidential candidates and beyond, while the voters of the vast majority of states are ignored. The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012- and that in today's political climate, the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states. It is a simple matter that your vote should count as much as anyone else's, as it does in elections for other offices.

The National Popular Vote bill simply guarantees that the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in all 50 states will win the Presidency. Adding up votes of all voters and winning with the most popular votes is the method that is used in virtually every other election in the country.

States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to decide how they award their electoral votes for president.

A survey of Connecticut voters showed 74% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

Voters were asked:
"How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"

Support, by political affiliation, was 80% among Democrats, 67% among Republicans, and 71% among others.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls
in recent or past closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA --75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%;
in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%;
in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and
in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.

Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, and large states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes – 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.

On February 12, 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 28–18 margin.

On June 7, 2011, the Republican-controlled New York Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 47–13 margin, with Republicans favoring the bill by 21–11. Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party favored the bill 17–7.

In May 2011, Jason Cabel Roe, a lifelong conservative activist and professional political consultant wrote in National Popular Vote is Good for Republicans: "I strongly support National Popular Vote. It is good for Republicans, it is good for conservatives . . . , and it is good for America. National Popular Vote is not a grand conspiracy hatched by the Left to manipulate the election outcome.
It is a bipartisan effort of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to allow every state – and every voter – to have a say in the selection of our President, and not just the 15 Battle Ground States [that then existed in 2011].

National Popular Vote is not a change that can be easily explained, nor the ramifications thought through in sound bites. It takes a keen political mind to understand just how much it can help . . . Republicans. . . . Opponents either have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea or don’t fully understand it. . . . We believe that the more exposure and discussion the reform has the more support that will build for it."

The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote includes former Congressmen John Anderson (R–Illinois and later independent presidential candidate), John Buchanan (R–Alabama), Tom Campbell (R–California), and Tom Downey (D–New York), and former Senators Birch Bayh (D–Indiana), David Durenberger (R–Minnesota), and Jake Garn (R–Utah). Supporters include former Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)

Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the NPV plan would not help either party over the other.

Rich Bolen, a Constitutional scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County, South Carolina, wrote:"A Conservative Case for National Popular Vote: Why I support a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College."

Thanks Governor Malloy for pushing to get rid of this outdated system.. You have my vote.

A survey of Connecticut voters showed 74% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

Voters were asked:
"How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"

Support, by political affiliation, was 80% among Democrats, 67% among Republicans, and 71% among others.

By gender, support was 81% among women and 66% among men.

By age, support was 82% among 18-29 year olds, 69% among 30-45 year olds, 75% among 46-65 year olds, and 72% for those older than 65.

NationalPopularVote

Thing is Danny BOY, we do NOT live in a Democracy, we live in a Republic.
We elected to NOT be a Democracy to avoid mob rule, a thing which bothers you & the Democrats as they try year after year to eliminate our rights & liberties protected against YOU by the Constitutions put in place because the guys who started this country knew immoral unethical power hungry perverts like you would use your power to dismantle this great country.
Besides the FACT that its a very very rare thing for the winner of the election not to have won the popular vote too.

The reason for this Republic not being a Democracy is so that the majority CANNOT ignore the rights of the minority. There are limits to what you can do & you don't like that. So Move.

Oh Kenny with the lies and propaganda once again

Yes indeed Ken. ... "... and to the Republic, for which it stands..." ... This country was founded as a Republic, but has been craftily turned into a democracy to suit the money powers lust for control of the masses. ... and the majority of the population is completely unaware.

A democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Our two wolves have become the Democrat and Republican political parties.

National Popular Vote is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the U.S. Constitution in Article II, Section 1 gives the states exclusive and plenary control over the manner of awarding their electoral votes:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states. Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote. Since then, state laws gave the people the right to vote for President in all 50 states and DC.

The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state.

The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored.
9 states determined the 2012 election.
10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns now.
24 of the 27 lowest population states, that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections.
4 out of 5 Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising.

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. Since 1796, the Electoral College has had the form, but not the substance, of the deliberative body envisioned by the Founders. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote. It has nothing to do with direct democracy.

With National Popular Vote, citizens would not rule directly but, instead, continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

Oh Ken stop with the factless right wing propaganda.

Ken, this leftist troll replicated my screen name (and others, too).

it's all the left has anymore. they cannot prove their case with fact, so the pull this BS.

The right wing wacko has hijacked my user name... The Robtard is posting her lies and propaganda as me

more dismantling of the country as founded.

let me guess.....the F$A gets the promise of all sorts of free stuff....if you'll just vote for democrats who will give it to you. heck, with Amnesty in place, we probably dont even need elections....

wake up, people.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

The statewide winner-take-all rule (used by 48 of the 50 states) is not in the Constitution. It was not the Founders’ choice (having been used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789). It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention, and it was not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. The Founders were dead for decades before the winner-take-all rule became prevalent.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.