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

[DJT for Life]

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....
Add Maine and you have 193

Leaving 77 to reach 270

And the moment it reaches 270 it will be struck down by SCOTUS.

States are not allowed to circumvent the Constitution. They can apportion votes from within their own state. But It will take a constitution
convention to change to a popular vote. It is that fucking simple.

Type whatever you want, complain, moan and/or groan...It is all irrelevant. This is just theater. Go find 2/3's of the States to call for
a constitution convention and then find 3/4's of the states to ratify the change. Anything else and you can forget it.

It would only take one voter from one state to sue...SCOTUS would rule within a week and that State could very likely have their Electoral
Votes stricken from the election.

 

[rightwinger]

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....
Add Maine and you have 193

Leaving 77 to reach 270

And the moment it reaches 270 it will be struck down by SCOTUS.

States are not allowed to circumvent the Constitution. They can apportion votes from within their own state. But It will take a constitution
convention to change to a popular vote. It is that fucking simple.

Type whatever you want, complain, moan and/or groan...It is all irrelevant. This is just theater. Go find 2/3's of the States to call for
a constitution convention and then find 3/4's of the states to ratify the change. Anything else and you can forget it.

It would only take one voter from one state to sue...SCOTUS would rule within a week and that State could very likely have their Electoral
Votes stricken from the election.

I don’t see anything in the Constitution telling states how they can assign EVs

We have a Conservative court which mostly follow the Constitution to the letter. Unless they are completely partisan Republicans, they would have to rule for the states

 

[Stormy Daniels]

It's a Federal System not a state system

No. Not, it's not. The constitution explicitly states that the state legislatures determine the method of choosing electors. Electors are a state office, period.

Think you’re going to hold those offices next year when your electorates vote against the will of their citizens?

I'm not holding any offices. And how the people react is not the issue at hand. The claim was made that this would be an unconstitutional method for choosing electors. That is false. The measure is constitutional. That does not mean it is wise or effective. But it's not going to be changed by the courts. If the people of Maine disapprove they can take that up with their legislature. If not, then que sera sera.

Actually it may change quite a bit. Your no care attitude may help the further destruction of the dem party even more than Trump has done. You’re the assholes not wanting voter ID. Just wait until a state like Colorado votes for Trump and their delegates go to a democrat. You think they will just shrug this off?

Except, I'm not a Democrat.

 

[Moonglow]

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states. Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

U. S. Electoral College: Who Are the Electors? How Do They Vote?

 

[rightwinger]

Why would Republicans complain?

Are they that sure they will never win the popular vote again?

 

[edward37]

Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.

LOL LOL LOL fk all republican scum Not you bk We know you're neutral

 

[BrokeLoser]

Not if shithole states continue to strip their citizenry of their right to cast a meaningful vote by conceding their state to the popular vote victor.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

It's a Federal System not a state system

No. Not, it's not. The constitution explicitly states that the state legislatures determine the method of choosing electors. Electors are a state office, period.

Think you’re going to hold those offices next year when your electorates vote against the will of their citizens?

I'm not holding any offices. And how the people react is not the issue at hand. The claim was made that this would be an unconstitutional method for choosing electors. That is false. The measure is constitutional. That does not mean it is wise or effective. But it's not going to be changed by the courts. If the people of Maine disapprove they can take that up with their legislature. If not, then que sera sera.

Actually it may change quite a bit. Your no care attitude may help the further destruction of the dem party even more than Trump has done. You’re the assholes not wanting voter ID. Just wait until a state like Colorado votes for Trump and their delegates go to a democrat. You think they will just shrug this off?

Except, I'm not a Democrat.

LMAO! Ok that was funny.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 requires congressional consent before the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact can be enforced. Less than that would go to the Court.

Keep in mind that should a state's voters choose one candidate, and the state gives the votes to the opponent, the lives of those state officials would likely be worth less than spit.

My goodness....and now you resort to threatening lives.

Merely stating a matter of human nature.

 

[bodecea]

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....
Add Maine and you have 193

Leaving 77 to reach 270

And the moment it reaches 270 it will be struck down by SCOTUS.

States are not allowed to circumvent the Constitution. They can apportion votes from within their own state. But It will take a constitution
convention to change to a popular vote. It is that fucking simple.

Type whatever you want, complain, moan and/or groan...It is all irrelevant. This is just theater. Go find 2/3's of the States to call for
a constitution convention and then find 3/4's of the states to ratify the change. Anything else and you can forget it.

It would only take one voter from one state to sue...SCOTUS would rule within a week and that State could very likely have their Electoral
Votes stricken from the election.

What in the Constitution is circumvented by states setting up how their Electors base their College votes? Read Article II and show us where this idea would go against the Constitution. Show us.

 

[bodecea]

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 requires congressional consent before the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact can be enforced. Less than that would go to the Court.

Keep in mind that should a state's voters choose one candidate, and the state gives the votes to the opponent, the lives of those state officials would likely be worth less than spit.

My goodness....and now you resort to threatening lives.

Merely stating a matter of human nature.

Ah....so this is a CRC belief? That threatening lives is simply a matter of human nature?

 

[bodecea]

Why would Republicans complain?

Are they that sure they will never win the popular vote again?

It certainly seems like their argument shows their concern in that regard.

 

[edward37]

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 requires congressional consent before the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact can be enforced. Less than that would go to the Court.

Keep in mind that should a state's voters choose one candidate, and the state gives the votes to the opponent, the lives of those state officials would likely be worth less than spit.

My goodness....and now you resort to threatening lives.

Merely stating a matter of human nature.

If it was just human nature BK the AH you support would be pushing up daisies

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.

LOL LOL LOL fk all republican scum Not you bk We know you're neutral

Oh. While I am issue driven, I am far from neutral these days.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.

No it isn't. States rights.

States right to be stupid like libs are. Idiots.

 

[JusticeHammer]

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.

Only an idiot would support this. Idiot demoncraps.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 requires congressional consent before the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact can be enforced. Less than that would go to the Court.

Keep in mind that should a state's voters choose one candidate, and the state gives the votes to the opponent, the lives of those state officials would likely be worth less than spit.

My goodness....and now you resort to threatening lives.

Merely stating a matter of human nature.

Ah....so this is a CRC belief? That threatening lives is simply a matter of human nature?

You're catching up to rdean.

 

[BULLDOG]

 

[airplanemechanic]

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.

Because if a majority of voters in one state's candidate does not get the electoral votes for that state then a majority of voters in that state's votes are being suppressed. It's always been that the majority candidate gets the electoral votes of that state.

Quit trying to change the rules because you lost the game.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

View attachment 261224

Those aren't available in democrat/socialist countries and soon won't be here if you vote for them or have your state give up your vote for you.