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

[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?

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.

I'm pretty sure that "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" is broad enough to cover that.

 

[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.

I'm pretty sure that "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" is broad enough to cover that.

Nope. It isn't.

 

[SomeDudeUDunno]

Watch and see when this hits the Supreme Court.

 

[BlindBoo]

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

I disagree. A ruling preventing the States to not choose their electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" directly contravenes the Constitution.

 

[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.

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

A direct election will increase voter participation across the board.

/—-/ Yeah because half the country’s registered voters don’t show up to vote because of the Electoral College - Settled Science - you blithering idiot.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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?

Not the issue. The issue is a state awarding its electoral votes by default to the popular winner, against the will of the state's 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?

Not the issue. The issue is a state awarding its electoral votes by default to the popular winner, against the will of the state's voters.

He seems to think that is perfectly fine and nobody would have an issue with it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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?

Not the issue. The issue is a state awarding its electoral votes by default to the popular winner, against the will of the state's voters.

He seems to think that is perfectly fine and nobody would have an issue with it.

Boo can be a bit blind.

 

[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?

Not the issue. The issue is a state awarding its electoral votes by default to the popular winner, against the will of the state's voters.

The States voters have the right to vote in legislators who can change the law and destroy the pact.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

With respect to the states voters not the national popular vote.. This is going to die a painful death at SCOTUS.

 

[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?

Not the issue. The issue is a state awarding its electoral votes by default to the popular winner, against the will of the state's voters.

He seems to think that is perfectly fine and nobody would have an issue with it.

In reality, when I first heard about the pact years ago I thought it was unconstitutional too.

I changed my mind on that.

I didn't change my mind on the fact that it would be a temporary legislative solution that could easily be overturned by a single state legislature. Better to have a new Amendment to directly elect the executive, imo.

 

[SomeDudeUDunno]

Maine

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?

Not the issue. The issue is a state awarding its electoral votes by default to the popular winner, against the will of the state's voters.

He seems to think that is perfectly fine and nobody would have an issue with it.

In reality, when I first heard about the pact years ago I thought it was unconstitutional too.

I changed my mind on that.

I didn't change my mind on the fact that it would be a temporary legislative solution that could easily be overturned by a single state legislature. Better to have a new Amendment to directly elect the executive, imo.

That would be the proper way to go about it. Though I wouldn't support direct Democratic elections of the president. I'd rather just secede.

 

[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?

Not the issue. The issue is a state awarding its electoral votes by default to the popular winner, against the will of the state's voters.

He seems to think that is perfectly fine and nobody would have an issue with it.

Boo can be a bit blind.

But she had a great nose. She could sniff out where I threw her nasty, wet, sloppy pull toy almost without exception.. Except when we washed it! Was that mean?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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?

Not the issue. The issue is a state awarding its electoral votes by default to the popular winner, against the will of the state's voters.

The States voters have the right to vote in legislators who can change the law and destroy the pact.

Do you honestly believe that should the state's voters vote in the majority for one candidate, that it would be permitted to stand if the state transferred those votes over to the opponent who received few votes within the state?

You'd be finding legislators in ditches, or impaled on pitchforks along the road.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Do we feel comfortable knowing that in essence, the 2020 election is guaranteed to Democrats by this manner, or.....9 people could actually be choosing our next President?

Either way, the bottom line is that Democrats are (and have been) at war with America for a long time now and their persistence while meeting little resistance is paying off in the long run.

Yes, we all should be VERY concerned no matter if this goes to the SCOTUS or not and regardless of the outcome.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

LOL..

Really??

When did we repeal the 10th amendment?

 

[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.

LOL..

Really??

When did we repeal the 10th amendment?


View attachment 268605

You mean this one?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

LOL..

Really??

When did we repeal the 10th amendment?


View attachment 268605

You mean this one?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I got it corrected.. but thanks any way..

Your post is incorrect in its assessment as if it is not specifically dealt with in the document the states retain the right to make laws..

 

[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?

Not the issue. The issue is a state awarding its electoral votes by default to the popular winner, against the will of the state's voters.

The States voters have the right to vote in legislators who can change the law and destroy the pact.

Do you honestly believe that should the state's voters vote in the majority for one candidate, that it would be permitted to stand if the state transferred those votes over to the opponent who received few votes within the state?

You'd be finding legislators in ditches, or impaled on pitchforks along the road.

Or at least face a major electoral challenge in their next election.

 

[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.

LOL..

Really??

When did we repeal the 10th amendment?


View attachment 268605

You mean this one?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I got it corrected.. but thanks any way..

Those case were decided by interpretation because there is nothing specific in the Constitution about them. Not so for choosing the EC electors.