An Act Concerning The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would directly impact how the state contributes to the national presidential election process. By withdrawing from the compact, the state would revert to strict adherence to the Electoral College system, meaning that its electors would cast their votes according to the outcomes of the state's own elections rather than contributing to a possible national referendum through the compact. This change could potentially limit the influence of the state's votes in national elections, especially if other states remain in the compact and opt to allocate their electoral votes differently based on national popular votes.
Summary
House Bill 6080 proposes to withdraw the state from the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This compact is an agreement among participating states to allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote for president, rather than following the traditional Electoral College system. The intent behind the bill is to disengage from this cooperative strategy that modifies the electoral process for selecting the President of the United States. By repealing the relevant section of the general statutes, the bill seeks to ensure that the state adheres to the longstanding Electoral College method, thus maintaining a buffer against perceived risks associated with the direct popular vote in presidential elections.
Contention
The bill's proposal has sparked discussions among legislators and the public alike. Supporters argue that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact undermines the principles of the Electoral College and creates confusion in the electoral process, asserting that presidential elections should be decided by states rather than a direct vote across the nation. Conversely, opponents of HB 6080 argue that the compact reflects a modern advancement in aligning electoral outcomes with the preference of the majority of voters, promoting greater voter engagement and representation. The conflicting perspectives highlight a broader debate over how democracy should function in the context of electing a president.