National Popular Vote Compact fails 90 minute debate, sanity prevails for unknown reasons

CTNewsJunkie: House Tables Debate On National Popular Vote <read>
It is rare that a bill is debated that has insufficient majority caucus support to pass.  Yet we cannot fault the Speaker’s logic:

House Speaker Joe Aresimowicz, D-Berlin, said at the beginning of the session that he wouldn’t allow for a debate to move forward on the National Popular Vote out of respect for the results of the November 2016 election. Trump won the election with 304 Electoral College votes.

What changed?

“My view of the president,” Aresimowicz said. “As far as credibility goes he’s damaging his own credibility, it’s not like we have to pile on here in the state of Connecticut.”

All joking aside, Aresimowicz said he’s heard from his constituents that they want the issue debated.

“I’m saying let’s at least hear it out and have the discussion,” Aresimowicz said Thursday morning during a press conference in his office before the House debated the bill.

House Majority Leader Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, said he expects the vote to be close and it’s unclear what will happen.

“We’ve asked members to think on their own about what they want to do,” Ritter said. “We think there’s a lot of merit sometimes in having things debated even if you don’t know what the outcome is going to be.”

Aresimowicz said there are members who have told them they won’t commit to vote one way or another before hearing the debate.

It’s rare that a bill would be raised for what’s likely to be hours of debate if there’s no guarantee it will be able to pass. The bill was tabled and could be raised in the future for a vote.

The Connecticut House approved legislation to join the National Popular Vote compact in 2009, but that year the Senate failed to take up the bill.

You can read the article for some of the arguments for and against.  Here, we disagree with both sides.  We do not buy the Republican arguments against nor the Democratic arguments for the bill.  We would support a sufficient Constitutional Amendment.  The Compact approach is dangerous, making a flawed system worse. It will lead to increased voter suppression and skulduggery.  See our recent Op-Ed and Full Testimony.

As for 2009, that was a also rare case where the NPV Compact went down by one vote and several Democrats then changed their votes so that it would pass <read>

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.