When the intended checks and balances in place is subverted, make more checks and balances

wasn't the point of the EC to stop mistakes like Trump from happening? Instituting more forced voting in the EC kinda continues to pervert the existing process.

I can easily see the state changing its position and shifting the law back to "wins the state's popular vote" when the need suits the party in power.

Truly the way to change this process is to amend the constitution, eliminate the EC entirely, and go to popular vote. I kinda like the EC, except when they don't do their actual job like this last election, but that's just my opinion.

Systems work until they don't. But yes, the point of the EC was to protect from the tyranny of the majority; the Founders were a bit frightened of unrestricted democracy.

What I don't get - what does this change for Connecticut? Its already a winner-take-all state, that went blue in every election since 1988 (GWHB over Dukakis). Is this just essentially a protest over the last election?

I think this is a... wait now I'm getting confused between theory and what's actually in place. Are EC voters in general not bound by the popular vote and only hold to it by tradition, or is that primary superdelegates?

Ok, I was confused too, and after some research:
Right now, the 'winner-take-all' policy means all of a state's EC votes go to the winner of the popular vote in their state. This law change, as part of the NPVIC, changes it such that the state's EC votes go to the winner of the over-all(national) popular vote, thereby attempting to ensure the EC winner is always the nation-wide popular vote winner.

Which seems to me like its gonna piss off some of those states if a state votes for the loser of the election and has their EC votes go for the candidate the state perhaps-even-overwhelmingly voted against (and would've changed absolutely nothing in this last election - all the NPVIC signatories are states that went blue anyway)

I also wondered if that's what this meant. This seems like a change that will ONLY work if every state were to do it (in other words, simply eliminating the EC in the most roundabout way possible). But if only some states do it then it does nothing except potentially piss off a lot of people, for no real gain.

It wouldn't take every state, just enough of them to form 50%+1 of the EC votes. Once you have that it doesn't matter what the rest of the states do. They can be ignored.

My understanding was that the EC can do what they want, and go with popular vote by tradition. Primary (regular) delegates have to match the ballot box, but superdelegates are again free to vote however they want.

This is gonna bite them.

We'll have an election where a Republican will carry the popular vote and CT will be forced to go red on the board. Then they'll just repeal it because they didn't like those results either.

I would assume this is triggered by a majority of EC votes committed, so that it doesn't come into play before that.

It would be interesting to see which party has won the EC but not the popular vote more often. I suspect it would be Republicans, perhaps exclusively.

You're actually correct. Sounds like they made a bet on probability.

Interesting. I'd presumed it would have happened at some point in the 20th century. Effectively it's just the most recent two Republican victories; I'm not sure how relevant the 19th century incidents would be.

I see no good in this for the State of Connecticut...at all!

It is one thing to say you want to change the system and change to Popular vote like the rest of the world...debatable. But to abdicate your local leverage and power to the will of others ...we will just go along.

Presumably this doesn't take effect until there's a majority commitment.

If this is just their states vote on changing the system fair enough.