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

[justoffal]

Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.

No it isn't. States rights.

No.... The state has the right to present the electoral votes anyway they like. The feds are under no obligation to accept them in an improper form.

It will be overturned... And quickly too I imagine.

Jo

Wait, are you saying the fee will refuse to accept the electoral votes from a state if they don't like the way they are arrived at?

I don't think that's true.

It's absolutely true...
Federal government will not accept electoral votes from a state that do not represent the majority of its voters. At that point the FEC will take over and assign the electoral votes in accord with the proper arrangement.

Jo

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

He will and it'll still be a bad idea and unConstitutional IF it makes it that far.

IMO, any legislator that voted for something like that should be impeached and fined.

What legislator(s)?

State legislators that knowingly and willingly failed to uphold the Constitution for the sake of partisan politics. I'm certain it could easily proven by coordinated emails. They all got together to do this across many states. That's a no-no.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.

Not a constitutional issue in any way.

You're funny dude.. It's a naked attempt to overturn the electoral college and the MEANING of it.... That;s how dumb you apparently are....

Umm.... i got that immediately. Apparently you are just now hip to the move.

Now understand that it is constitutiinal.

 

[flacaltenn]

Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.

No it isn't. States rights.

No.... The state has the right to present the electoral votes anyway they like. The feds are under no obligation to accept them in an improper form.

It will be overturned... And quickly too I imagine.

Jo

Wait, are you saying the fee will refuse to accept the electoral votes from a state if they don't like the way they are arrived at?

I don't think that's true.

It's absolutely true...
Federal government will not accept electoral votes from a state that do not represent the majority of its voters. At that point the FEC will take over and assign the electoral votes in accord with the proper arrangement.

Jo

Probably you're correct.. But this would take months to rattle thru court challenges and THAT IS MAYBE what they hope to accomplish.. To finish the work that Putin started to smash voter confidence in the US political system...

 

[okfine]

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 ...

One person One vote. Period.

 

[justoffal]

Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.

No it isn't. States rights.

No.... The state has the right to present the electoral votes anyway they like. The feds are under no obligation to accept them in an improper form.

It will be overturned... And quickly too I imagine.

Jo

Wait, are you saying the fee will refuse to accept the electoral votes from a state if they don't like the way they are arrived at?

I don't think that's true.

It's absolutely true...
Federal government will not accept electoral votes from a state that do not represent the majority of its voters. At that point the FEC will take over and assign the electoral votes in accord with the proper arrangement.

Jo

Probably you're correct.. But this would take months to rattle thru court challenges and THAT IS MAYBE what they hope to accomplish.. To finish the work that Putin started to smash voter confidence in the US political system...

Russia has been doing that for five decades. At the height of their activity they only represent a fraction of what China has been doing.

The country would remain with the current president until the court challenges are settled. I would imagine some wouldn't care if it took ten years.

Jo

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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...

What are you trying but failing to say?

Post the delegate count fron the 2016 dem primary, dope.

That post made NO sense at all.. The delegate count was overwhelmingly for the winner.. That's how this is supposed to work since about 1779...

Now if any state wants to BIND all it's electors to the NATIONAL VOTE instead of the various methods for apportioning their electors by the WILL OF THE PEOPLE of that state --- they've BYPASSED the intent and purpose of the Electoral College...

You even TRYING to follow along here?

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...

That post made NO sense at all..

Of course you make no sense.

You have no intention to back your claims at all.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

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.

He will and it'll still be a bad idea and unConstitutional IF it makes it that far.

IMO, any legislator that voted for something like that should be impeached and fined.

What legislator(s)?

State legislators that knowingly and willingly failed to uphold the Constitution for the sake of partisan politics. I'm certain it could easily proven by coordinated emails. They all got together to do this across many states. That's a no-no.

Point to the applicable section of the constitution that forbids this action.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

He will and it'll still be a bad idea and unConstitutional IF it makes it that far.

IMO, any legislator that voted for something like that should be impeached and fined.

What legislator(s)?

State legislators that knowingly and willingly failed to uphold the Constitution for the sake of partisan politics. I'm certain it could easily proven by coordinated emails. They all got together to do this across many states. That's a no-no.

Point to the applicable section of the constitution that forbids this action.

Do your own research on this.. You're way behind understanding the MULTIPLE Constitutional issues here.. Which not only include extra-legal circumvention of the COnstitutionally mandated EC college, but also violations of "state to state compact laws" without approval of Congress and likely infringement of several voting rights acts...

But it's really nasty betrayal to the VOTERS of their state that THEIR VOTES don't matter....

 

[justoffal]

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.

He will and it'll still be a bad idea and unConstitutional IF it makes it that far.

IMO, any legislator that voted for something like that should be impeached and fined.

What legislator(s)?

State legislators that knowingly and willingly failed to uphold the Constitution for the sake of partisan politics. I'm certain it could easily proven by coordinated emails. They all got together to do this across many states. That's a no-no.

Point to the applicable section of the constitution that forbids this action.

Constitution doesn't expressly forbid taking a shit in the Senate chambers either. Why don't we try it?

Jo

 

[justoffal]

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.

He will and it'll still be a bad idea and unConstitutional IF it makes it that far.

IMO, any legislator that voted for something like that should be impeached and fined.

What legislator(s)?

State legislators that knowingly and willingly failed to uphold the Constitution for the sake of partisan politics. I'm certain it could easily proven by coordinated emails. They all got together to do this across many states. That's a no-no.

Point to the applicable section of the constitution that forbids this action.

Do your own research on this.. You're way behind understanding the MULTIPLE Constitutional issues here.. Which not only include extra-legal circumvention of the COnstitutionally mandated EC college, but also violations of "state to state compact laws" without approval of Congress and likely infringement of several voting rights acts...

But it's really nasty betrayal to the VOTERS of their state that THEIR VOTES don't matter....

Trust me.... It would not be allowed.

Jo

 

[Crepitus]

Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.

No it isn't. States rights.

No.... The state has the right to present the electoral votes anyway they like. The feds are under no obligation to accept them in an improper form.

It will be overturned... And quickly too I imagine.

Jo

Wait, are you saying the fee will refuse to accept the electoral votes from a state if they don't like the way they are arrived at?

I don't think that's true.

It's absolutely true...
Federal government will not accept electoral votes from a state that do not represent the majority of its voters. At that point the FEC will take over and assign the electoral votes in accord with the proper arrangement.

Jo

Not a huge fan of the Constitution then? Most conservatives aren't.

 

[emilynghiem]

That Law will go down in flames as it's Unconstitutional.

You cannot lawfully assign your Electoral Votes to someone who loses your State's Election, just because they lost in your state, but won the overall popular vote.

Nothing unconstitutional about it. The only constitutional challenge is if it is an interstate compact that requires the approval of Congress or not.

You are dead wrong.

Let's say Donald Trump loses in Maine, and Queer Libphuckistan wins Maine.
Donald Trump goes on to win The Popular Vote.

How many Law Suits are going to happen in MAINE, when Maine's Voters find out that their Electoral Votes are going to go to Donald Trump, and not Queer Libphuckistan who won The State of MAINE?

It will end up in SCOTUS and struck down because Maine's Government is Disenfranchising Maine's Voters.

Why do you got to show your stupid today?

It will never get to the SCOTUS. The Constitution is clear. The States have the Constitutional authority to choose.

Dear 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

The laws that were VOTED ON by people of that state
barring same sex marriage are still being contested
as a matter of State's rights to determine their own laws on marriage.

But that was struck down as unconstitutional to determine
terms of marriage that not all the people in that state consent to.

Now the same thing is happening with electoral votes in many states.

Whatever policy that state comes up with, it has to be by the consent
of the people in that state. Or else it's going to face similar challenges.

I suggest that states that are contesting these policies look into
proportional representation by party and splitting the votes accordingly.

That should be fair to ALL people regardless of party affiliation.
If the Electoral Votes that state has are DIVIDED PROPORTIONALLY
among all the party candidates, there can be no argument that isn't fair.
(in cases the votes cannot be divided evenly due to decimal points,
there can be a policy about awarding the rounded up vote(s) to the
candidates with the highest decimal places, in order).

For example:
A. 11 Electoral Votes
48.2% Party D = 5.302 = rounded down to 5
47.5% Party R = 5.225 = rounded down to 5
4.3% Party X = .473 = rounded up to 1 (since .4 is greater than .3 or .2)

40% Party D = 4.4 = rounded down to 4
58.2% Party R = 6.402 = rounded up to 7 (since .402 is higher than .4 or .198)
1.8% Party C = .198 = rounded down to 0


B. 2 Electoral Votes (1 Each would go to R and L with the highest decimals)
Party D = .251
Party R = .3 = rounded up to 1
Party L = .253 = rounded up to 1
Party G = .196

 

[emilynghiem]

That Law will go down in flames as it's Unconstitutional.

You cannot lawfully assign your Electoral Votes to someone who loses your State's Election, just because they lost in your state, but won the overall popular vote.

Nothing unconstitutional about it. The only constitutional challenge is if it is an interstate compact that requires the approval of Congress or not.

In spirit, BlindBoo
1. if it's relying on the popular votes of OTHER STATES then that is "interstate" influence
even if there isn't a direct compact in writing between states. Indirectly that is happening.
2. if you consider it an organized effort between PARTIES across different states,
where the party leadership in different states are lobbying for this IN CONCERT
with party leadership in other states, that's like bypassing "interstate compacts"
and colluding between party organizations to have their own compact.
That's even worse.
But LEGALISTICALLY you could be right BlindBoo.
This may not be counted as "interstate" policy
because parties count as private not govt.

In spirit, it's violating the Constitutional process and protections
by abusing PARTY organizations to bypass the system.

I still agree with the other arguments against this system of
using NATIONAL popular vote to determine STATE electoral votes.

I would, however, support states in using their OWN popular vote
and just dividing the Electoral Votes PROPORTIONALLY as the
most fair way to prevent ALL the votes from going to one winner
where the other votes aren't represented at all.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

 

[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.

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

States are not allowed to circumvent the Constitution

You have no functional understanding of the constitution, dope.

I have a very good understanding of it.

The Electoral College decides the election not the popular vote.

The States proportion their votes based on how their state votes. If a state were to be won by one party yet the votes given to
another party, and one voter sues based on the grounds that the state disenfranchised their vote, they would win.

 

[easyt65]

Too bad all this effort is wasted...pretty sure all this is In-Constitutional...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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 ...

That's about voter disenfranchisement what if the people of Maine did not vote for the national popular vote winner?
THIS WILL BE CHALLENGED because you bypasses the intent of the electoral college.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

yes it is suppression of the voters of that state.

 

[OldLady]

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.

He will and it'll still be a bad idea and unConstitutional IF it makes it that far.

IMO, any legislator that voted for something like that should be impeached and fined.

What legislator(s)?

State legislators that knowingly and willingly failed to uphold the Constitution for the sake of partisan politics. I'm certain it could easily proven by coordinated emails. They all got together to do this across many states. That's a no-no.

Point to the applicable section of the constitution that forbids this action.

Do your own research on this.. You're way behind understanding the MULTIPLE Constitutional issues here.. Which not only include extra-legal circumvention of the COnstitutionally mandated EC college, but also violations of "state to state compact laws" without approval of Congress and likely infringement of several voting rights acts...

But it's really nasty betrayal to the VOTERS of their state that THEIR VOTES don't matter....

In Maine, we feel every single one of our votes matter, and by signing this compact, we know that every vote goes toward the majority that will win. We're a pretty purple state full of Independents, so it could go either way.