In the end, the national presidential polls were accurate. Hillary Clinton has mounted a nearly three million popular vote lead on Donald Trump, the fifth time a presidential candidate has lost the electoral college count while winning the popular vote. Trump winning razor-thin contests in three traditionally blue states made the difference. Clinton, who won Connecticut handily, thus the state’s seven electoral college votes, took the national popular vote by roughly two points, within the margin of error of most national polls. But U.S. presidential elections are decided state by state through the dubious electoral college system. On Monday electoral college voters will cast their official votes, including Bridgeport Democratic State Rep. Chris Rosario, one of seven in Connecticut.
“It is a great Honor to have been chosen by the Party to be an elector,” says Rosario. “This is a historic moment for our state and our country. It’s been an extremely divisive election, and a lot of people this year are having trouble accepting the outcome. I wish I was on the winning side, but we have to move on and continue to move our City, State and Country forward.”
Connecticut Secretary of the State Denise Merrill will preside over the vote of Connecticut’s seven electors at noon on Monday broadcast live on Connecticut Network (CT-N) and viewable at http://www.ctn.state.ct.us/.
Connecticut’s seven electors:
Robert D. Godfrey (Danbury)
Barbara C. Gordon (West Hartford)
Steven James Jones (Tolland)
Ellen S. Nurse (Hartford)
Edward F. Piazza (New Haven)
Christopher Rosario (Bridgeport)
Tyisha S. Walker (New Haven)
Meanwhile, Democratic Congressman Jim Himes has issued an appeal to electoral college voters in states Trump won to say no to the president-elect. Fat chance but here’s Himes’ pitch.
In The Federalist Papers, No 68, Alexander Hamilton writes that the most “deadly adversaries” of our form of government may be the “desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”
He goes on to explain one of the chief purposes of the Electoral College is to ensure “the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”
Unfortunately, it seems Hamilton’s fears both of influence from outside powers and the threat of a completely unqualified individual about to ascend to the Presidency are coming true. We have a duty to respond.
In the immediate aftermath of the election, I gave Donald Trump an opportunity to prove himself to the American people. However, he has failed at virtually every turn and it is now clear that his Presidency presents a serious threat to the United States. In the past month, Trump has derided the American intelligence community in defense of the Kremlin, thrown diplomatic protocol and common sense into the wind in his dealings with China, and skipped his intelligence briefings. This week, he found time to meet with Kanye West. All of this is in addition to the sexism, racism, xenophobia and lies he displayed during the campaign.
This combination of dangerously bad judgment, coupled with inappropriate ties to Russia and proof of foreign tampering in the election, have convinced me to call upon the Electoral College of the United States to select someone other than Donald Trump as the next President of the United States.
The Electoral College should choose a fully qualified, consensus candidate for President. This is no longer about our political parties, but stopping a threat to our nation. As a legal matter, this path is complicated. Most state laws prohibit Electors from exercising the judgment the Founders clearly hoped they would. That conflict has never been fully resolved by the Supreme Court. But I would choose a complicated legal problem over a supremely unprepared, erratic and distracted President anytime.
I understand that elections have consequences. Regardless of who the next President is, we must find areas where we can work together across the political spectrum to move our country forward. Most importantly, we must protect the safety and security of our families and country. That means doing what’s right, even if it’s hard–encouraging the Electoral College to say no to Donald Trump.
Himes is a lower-Fairfield County shithead. We have a constitution that must be followed. Just because your candidate lost the election, you want to violate the constitution. Screw You, Himes.
ACF is a local duty-wipe! Himes is following the Constitution, not violating it!
Bullshit.
Bullshit.
Bullshit.
The constitution; I read it for the articles.
Based on her hilarious, insightful and pithy OIB comment, Jennifer Buchanan has 99 invitations for lunch, all in metro Washington DC, some with prominent politicians.
Here’s the best part: JB has friends in DC and soon-to-be VP Pence has promised to fly her to DC to make all 99 lunch dates.
Yes, I have friends in low places.
Electoral College History
time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/
Chris Rosario, VOTE NO. Trump has placed our country’s security at risk by cozying up to Russia, and he lost the popular vote by an overwhelming amount. He’s a scam artist. I interacted with him in the mid-’90s when he screwed Bridgeport. If you are courageous enough to stand up to this atrocity, you will have an everlasting future in Bridgeport.
Rosario has to cast his vote for Clinton and can’t cast it for Trump even if he wanted to. Lisa, tell me about the atrocity Trump is responsible for. Liberals are still crying. BTW how about the atrocities in Aleppo that Obama has ignored?
Andy, I will tell you the Trump story but it’s too long to write. If we ever see each other we can have a civil conversation or I’d be willing to email you. He screwed us, I was still on the CC and I knew everything that was going on during that timeframe. I also agree with you regarding the massacre in Aleppo, but where are the rest of the allies? If it means a replay of Nam, I’m for protecting our own. I’m not a bleeding heart, although I have no problem being conceived as one. I despise Trump and I doubt that will ever change. I know he’ll be the next president, but I hope not for long.
Occasionally I feel Himes acts reasonably in matters. His position here convinces me he is a wimp and will do what the DNC dictates.
Connecticut’s Electoral College votes are committed to Clinton. They have no choice as to how they vote.
In the weeks leading up to election day, Clinton was doing a victory lap as the news media reported she was likely to easily reach the required 270 Electoral College votes. Well, they were wrong. Get over it.
Dick Himes says, “In The Federalist Papers.” Why does he apply the The Federalist Papers when it supports his opinion or thought but when they oppose his opinion or thought The Federalist Papers are not applicable?
He is an ass****.
Democratic Congressman Jim Himes is going in the wrong direction because the issue is much bigger than Donald Trump, because this time it’s Trump and the Republicans who gain the advantage from the electoral college but the next time it could be the Democratic candidate and the Democratic Party. The system needs to destroy it. What was the original intent of the of the electoral college? All one has to do is Google the history of the electoral college and you will see there is no need for the electoral college for over 300 years ago unless America plans on bringing back slavery. Here are a few items I found.
“How slavery birthed the electoral college”
By Myra Adams
Americans can blame our Founding Fathers for concocting the Electoral College as spelled out in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1. But lost in U.S. history was how the Electoral College resulted from a compromise between northern and southern states over the divisive issue of slavery.
The delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention had a variety of reasons for settling on the Electoral College format, but protecting smaller states was not among them. Some delegates feared direct democracy, but that was only one factor in the debate.
“Is slavery the reason for the Electoral College?”
www .cnn.com/videos/us/2016/11/22/why-was-the-electoral-college-created-slavery-orig.cnn
Let’s assume the electoral college was generated to prevent the southern states from having the advantage due to the population (which included the slaves) -vs- the northern states with less population (free states). Is the electoral college as we know it today based on the same premise without slaves? Instead of the south or the north having the advantage due to the population, today it prevents a couple or few states from having the advantage.
The idea of one person, one vote in America is eliminated by the electoral college. Remember, slaves were counted as property and not humans, women had no right to vote, only white men of wealth had the right to vote at that time. Americans who choose to live on either coast basically have their right to vote for the President taken away them only because of where they want to raise their family. That was never the original intent of the founding fathers.
Based on the articles you posted, when the electoral college was “negotiated” (south and north), slaves were to be counted in the population count, which gave the south more delegates for the electoral college. This may have been the first step toward humanizing the slave. Prior to the electoral college implementation wealthy white men were the voters. The electoral college allowed all white men to vote.
Right on, Ron!
I am not in favor of one state controlling the outcome of a presidential election. President-elect Trump lost the national popular vote by a total of 2.8 million votes. Negating California’s total in the whole, Donald Trump won the rest of the country by 1.4 million votes. He was outvoted in California by 4.2 million. This is why the Electoral College has persevered, and for good reason IMHO.
It’s not about one state controlling anything, it’s about all eligible voters who vote and the person with the most votes winning. All States have two U.S. Senators no matter how many people are in their State thereby making them as powerful as the smallest State of the 50 States. And every 500,000 people in each State get one U.S. House of Representatives member. There is truly no need in 2016 for a electoral college and there hasn’t been a need since the end of slavery.
And why would we negate California? They are not a state? The bottom line is we don’t negate California because they are a state. Poetic license does not extend to math. The numbers are what they are and California counts.
It IS one state controlling, or it would be. In presidential election 2000 Bush also won the majority Electoral College votes, but not the popular vote. Then, again it was California with the biggest majority that made it that way. Californians also voted for Ralph Nader, almost 1/2 million votes, and yes, the electorate reflect the numbers of Congressmen and Senators. Originally, it was just Congressman representing the states, and they did it by population, like you said, which became Districts. This was considered unfair to lesser populated states that never received any real consideration in Washington, so the Senate was created to balance the representation with two equal votes per state. So, California has 55 electors, way more than any other state. That’s the representation they get!
That was NEVER the original intent to have an electoral college. Once again, the Electoral College resulted from a compromise between northern and southern states over the divisive issue of slavery, it had NOTHING to do with what you wrote but what you said is the result and that can be changed because again, there is no need for the Electoral College.