Maine Senate passes bill giving state's electoral votes to national popular vote winner

[Slyhunter]

Sounds to me like a perverted form of voter suppression

Only an idiot would claim that the law endorsing the person who gets the most votes is voter suppression.

also sounds like a strong SCOTUS issue!

Because you don't like it? The constitution is perfectly clear. Each state chooses the method for appointing electors. Period. Get over it, snowflake.

Bad move... What if TRUMP WINS the popular vote? You gonna congratulate these mental midgets for their brilliant plan when NY, Cal, DC, and MAINE turn red on election night? It's naked power grabbing..

And I don't like it. But that doesn't matter.. What matters is that states cannot PRESCRIBE voting rules like that to their electors in the Electoral College. That's why you always get a few renegade electors that DO NOT FOLLOW the vote and end up voting for people either NOT on the ballot or who were never NOMINATED to run i in the general election..

You should spend more time understanding how things work and less time wasted defending ideas that are clearly partisan power grabbing... Stupid ideas that could backfire horribly on the conspirator babies....

What if TRUMP WINS the popular vote?

Then maybe it was a good idea?

The door swings both ways, dope.
The only way you're against it is if you believe the Repubs will never get the popular vote.

incorrect. I don't want the voters in California and New York telling the rest of the country how to spend their electors. Your way, 2 States control all your votes.

 

[Slyhunter]

I may be wrong but they will be selecting their nominee by the popular vote. Lets see what happens when one of them losses by the popular vote of 2 States, New York and California, but wins in states that gave their electors away to the popular vote winner. I see Dems at the throats of other Dems declaring it unfair before it gets to a general election.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Sounds to me like a perverted form of voter suppression....no matter how the state votes its legislature gives its electoral votes to the person who at the end of voting wins the popular vote throughout the entire country....also sounds like a strong SCOTUS issue!

Maine's lawmakers passed a bill that would give the state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who won the national popular vote, taking a step toward becoming the 15th state to enact such a law. The Maine Senate voted 19-16 Tuesday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would give all committed states' electoral votes to the winning popular vote candidate should the group accrue the 270 votes necessary for a majority.

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and the District of Columbia have all committed to the pact. The most recent addition, New Mexico, put the total at 189 electoral votes....I believe those listed states are all DeathRAT controlled states!

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...

/——/ And if Trump wins the popular vote while the Blue State goes heavily for the democRAT, what then?

 

[hadit]

Sounds to me like a perverted form of voter suppression....no matter how the state votes its legislature gives its electoral votes to the person who at the end of voting wins the popular vote throughout the entire country....also sounds like a strong SCOTUS issue!

Maine's lawmakers passed a bill that would give the state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who won the national popular vote, taking a step toward becoming the 15th state to enact such a law. The Maine Senate voted 19-16 Tuesday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would give all committed states' electoral votes to the winning popular vote candidate should the group accrue the 270 votes necessary for a majority.

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and the District of Columbia have all committed to the pact. The most recent addition, New Mexico, put the total at 189 electoral votes....I believe those listed states are all DeathRAT controlled states!

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...

It's probably constitutional for states to do that, but I await the reaction of liberal CA residents the first time they see their electors go to a Republican even though they voted overwhelmingly for a democrat.

It's probably constitutional for states to do that, but I await the reaction of liberal CA residents the first time they see their electors go to a Republican even though they voted overwhelmingly for a democrat.

Umm.....
They just saw their votes nullified by unpopulated fly-over states for the second time this century. Wait until you get that shoved down your pie hole. No doubt your crowd will not handle it as gracefully.

Their votes were not, however, nullified by their own state. Big difference.

 

[007]

Geez... Just because the DNC can disenfranchise voters with "superdelegates" that are bound by the party elite and have 70,000 times the votes for each one of them compared to a normal citizen -- these leftists think they can do the same horseshit on a national scale...

Dear flacaltenn
The Democrats and liberals pushing for this have some kind of political philosophy
that you vote for whatever you can get away with until Court rulings stop you.
The justification is "since nobody is really following the rules, why bother."

Instead of understanding the limits on govt and how the democratic process
works to REPRESENT the consent of the people and prevent from going too far to any extreme,
these people "test the political waters and limits" by PUSHING and PASSING things FIRST,
then expecting the PUSHBACK to correct itself AFTER. Like trial and error.

It's like trying to hit the right note by hitting too far sharp or flat
until you are forced to correct yourself. Instead of aiming for the right pitch to BEGIN WITH.

I think this tactic is WASTEFUL, abusive, frustrating and dangerous to play politically like this.
It creates big messes and forces others including taxpayers to clean up AFTERWARDS.
(It also is abused to EXHAUST people and politicize sidetaking for points
when none of this is about really solving the problems. So part of the strategy
appears to be ATTRITION, wearing out people's resources so they can't fight back.)

Like kids peeing and pooping whenever and wherever they feel the urge,
while parents have to clean up messes while potty training them.

Somehow we missed the step of TEACHING and AGREEING
what the rules are to begin with. Maybe we should call a halt to the
entire process, stop and REVIEW THE RULES, and agree how to proceed
and what to STOP DOING if we can explain it's wasting public resources
to keep pushing things that are going to be counteracted anyway because
they are either unconstitutional directly OR indirectly by violating beliefs of others.

So there is NO justification for doing that if we can agree to solutions AS THE GOAL
that AREN'T violating either the constitution or people's beliefs, which
would save taxpayers money instead of fighting back and forth at public expense.

SEE Code of Ethics for Govt Service
where "any person in Government service should:
Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished."
www.ethics-commission.net

Simply put, the demtrash are cheating.

Lately democrats have had a real problem with a lot of laws and the constitution. Trying to frame a sitting president, working to flood America with non citizens, and now trying to undermine the constitution to bypass the electoral college.

Democrats are the party of trash, period.

 

[Third Party]

Constitutionally states can apportion their electoral votes in any way they see fit

Not entirely accurate. Under your standard, it would be legal for a formerly Confederate state to ensure its EC votes would NEVER go to a black candidate, and I do believe it is a Very Bad Thing to nullify the voices of minority voters.

Or a state could ensure it would never vote for a Muslim, or a homosexual candidate.

So, if it is, as you say, constitutional, then laws prohibiting such things are UNconstitutional, and must be overturned.

Dear Lesh and hadit
I agree that States do have rights,
but not the right to violate the equal protection of the laws for their citizens.
By Amendment Fourteen and the Civil Rights Act,
people have rights to due process, equal access to representation,
and protection from discrimination by creed.

Our system as it stands isn't perfect.
Majority rule and judicial rule get abused to
deprive people of rights based on their beliefs
not being included equally as the side claiming predominance in a case
where the two sides' beliefs are in conflict.

The proper solution would be to RESOLVE the conflict
instead of relying on a political solution of outvoting the other side.

All these other problems we are seeing are merely SYMPTOMS.
Like hadit said it well, until it manifests as a RACIST issue,
then people just let it keep happening. The death penalty is also
a conflict over BELIEFS,but had to be made into a RACE issue
before the disparity could be argued as something tangibly affecting
people unfairly.

I guess this will keep happening by not fixing the root problem.
And just politicizing the SYMPTOMS to force change.
Not how I would recommend doing it, but that's
how people use the system apparently.

Is this why Democrats keep screaming "racist"?

 

[BlindBoo]

Besides that The Dem Tards will sue the Government over their own dumb ass laws when they find out they will be forced to Give The Orange Menace their Electoral Votes anyways

Don't shed yer leaves just yet, they don't have enough states to enact the compact yet.

They are wasting taxpayer money on an unconstitutional hissy fit is what they are doing.. Only way to BIND ELECTORS in that manner is to AMEND the constitution....

What does the Constitution say about how a State can choose it's electors?

 

[BlindBoo]

It's a naked attempt to overturn the electoral college and the MEANING of it.

It is a legislative attempt to allow American citizens to directly elect the executive.

 

[Cellblock2429]

It's a naked attempt to overturn the electoral college and the MEANING of it.

It is a legislative attempt to allow American citizens to directly elect the executive.

/——-/ Bad idea. The Founding Fathers created the EC for a reason- one that has been explained to you Progs a 1,000 times.

 

[Jitss617]

We should win elections on the dominant color

 

[BlindBoo]

Here are other cases where State laws were later struck down:
1. laws banning abortion
2. laws banning same sex marriage
3. laws on slavery where slaves were mortgaged and protected as private property

There is no provision in the Constitution that specifically gives the States the right to ban abortions or ban certain types of marriages.

 

[HappyJoy]

View attachment 268581 We should win elections on the dominant color

Thanks for highlighting in blue where people actually live.

 

[Jitss617]

View attachment 268581 We should win elections on the dominant color

Thanks for highlighting in blue where people actually live.

It was red because people that live there voted lol

 

[HappyJoy]

View attachment 268581 We should win elections on the dominant color

Thanks for highlighting in blue where people actually live.

It was red because people that live there voted lol

psst, more people live in the blue areas. It's why the House is blue.

 

[SomeDudeUDunno]

Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.

No it isn't. States rights.

Like that right hasn't been ignored by the courts before? Lmao!

 

[BlindBoo]

The States proportion their votes based on how their state votes.

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,"

Doesn't give the Federal government any power whatsoever in determining how a State appoints it's electors does it?

 

[hadit]

Besides that The Dem Tards will sue the Government over their own dumb ass laws when they find out they will be forced to Give The Orange Menace their Electoral Votes anyways

Don't shed yer leaves just yet, they don't have enough states to enact the compact yet.

They are wasting taxpayer money on an unconstitutional hissy fit is what they are doing.. Only way to BIND ELECTORS in that manner is to AMEND the constitution....

What does the Constitution say about how a State can choose it's electors?

The Constitution is silent on the issue. It is also silent on other issues around which we place perimeters, such as abortion. To say that it is not unconstitutional for a state to apportion its electors so as to deny votes to a black candidate is not to say that Congress cannot place perimeters around it. What is most likely to happen is the SC will eventually set limits on how much the feds can do and how much states are allowed to disenfranchise their own voters.

 

[SomeDudeUDunno]

The States proportion their votes based on how their state votes.

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,"

Doesn't give the Federal government any power whatsoever in determining how a State appoints it's electors does it?

Yeah but it doesn't say the state government is allowed to set up a system that cancels out the people of the state's votes if they didn't vote the same way as California and New York either. And that is what this does, if the state voted for the winner of the electoral college.

 

[hadit]

Here are other cases where State laws were later struck down:
1. laws banning abortion
2. laws banning same sex marriage
3. laws on slavery where slaves were mortgaged and protected as private property

There is no provision in the Constitution that specifically gives the States the right to ban abortions or ban certain types of marriages.

Nor is there one that grants the federal government the power to prevent states from doing that, but the SC has stated that it can. This issue will also eventually be decided by the court, which will allow the federal government to allow or prevent states from disenfranchising their own voters.

 

[BlindBoo]

It's a naked attempt to overturn the electoral college and the MEANING of it.

It is a legislative attempt to allow American citizens to directly elect the executive.

/——-/ Bad idea. The Founding Fathers created the EC for a reason- one that has been explained to you Progs a 1,000 times.

For the world they lived in it was a great institution.

A direct election will increase voter participation across the board.