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

[BlindBoo]

Who tabulates the national popular vote for the presidential election

• Current federal law provides for an official count of the popular vote for President from each state in the form of a public “Certificate of Ascertainment.”

9.14 Myths about Lack of an Official National Count for Presidential Elections and Secret Elections

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You want I want to see? I want to see the framers of this thing and the legislators that voted for it hammered right into the ground. Removed from office, fined, and given 1 year in the Federal pen for sedition.

Under what law? You sort of forgot that part!

This one:

18 U.S.C. § 1918 - U.S. Code Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 1918 | FindLaw

It is truly amazing that you are not a liberal. Your reading comprehension skills are about on par with my Shih Tzu!

From your link:

Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 of title 5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he--

(1)  advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;

(2)  is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;

(3)  participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia;  or

(4)  is a member of an organization of employees of the Government of the United States or of individuals employed by the government of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the right to strike against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day, or both.

I am sure all of those state legislators are employees of the federal government or the District of Columbia.

Why are you such a dumbass?

 

[Marion Morrison]

You want I want to see? I want to see the framers of this thing and the legislators that voted for it hammered right into the ground. Removed from office, fined, and given 1 year in the Federal pen for sedition.

Under what law? You sort of forgot that part!

This one:

18 U.S.C. § 1918 - U.S. Code Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 1918 | FindLaw

It is truly amazing that you are not a liberal. Your reading comprehension skills are about on par with my Shih Tzu!

From your link:

Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 of title 5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he--

(1)  advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;

(2)  is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;

(3)  participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia;  or

(4)  is a member of an organization of employees of the Government of the United States or of individuals employed by the government of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the right to strike against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day, or both.

I am sure all of those state legislators are employees of the federal government or the District of Columbia.

Why are you such a dumbass?

Why do you always try to get me on semantics and fail? What part of "or hold" do you not understand?

It's worded very plainly.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

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 ...

The Corrupt Democratic Party can't function in our representative constitutional representative 'democracy', so they are trying to destroy it.
The Democratic Party operates like a coalition of thiefdoms.
Their large cities control the state governments.
They want to do the same thing with states.
The large states control the federal government.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You want I want to see? I want to see the framers of this thing and the legislators that voted for it hammered right into the ground. Removed from office, fined, and given 1 year in the Federal pen for sedition.

Under what law? You sort of forgot that part!

This one:

18 U.S.C. § 1918 - U.S. Code Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 1918 | FindLaw

It is truly amazing that you are not a liberal. Your reading comprehension skills are about on par with my Shih Tzu!

From your link:

Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 of title 5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he--

(1)  advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;

(2)  is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;

(3)  participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia;  or

(4)  is a member of an organization of employees of the Government of the United States or of individuals employed by the government of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the right to strike against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day, or both.

I am sure all of those state legislators are employees of the federal government or the District of Columbia.

Why are you such a dumbass?

Why do you always try to get me on semantics and fail? What part of "or hold" do you not understand?

It's worded very plainly.

What part of "the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia" did you not understand, numbnuts?

You have failed yet again, except to show you to be an undereducated buffoon!

 

[Marion Morrison]

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 ...

Tissue?

States entering into a compact with one another is unConstitutional, and clearly this is an organized compact.


"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3

Uh-Oh! National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

Constitution of the United States - We the People

States make agreements and compacts all the time without having to ask for the consent of Congress. The courts thus far have ruled the only compacts that infringe on Federal Power need to have the consent of Congress. Which btw, they are planning to ask anyway once they reach the magic number.

Choosing State electors in not a Constitutional Federal Power. The Constitution gives that power exclusively to the state legislators.

This one infringes on Federal power and the Constitution, numbnuts.

Since the Feds don't have the Constitutional power to choose a states electors, what federal power do you think it would infringe on?

You want I want to see? I want to see the framers of this thing and the legislators that voted for it hammered right into the ground. Removed from office, fined, and given 1 year in the Federal pen for sedition.

Under what law? You sort of forgot that part!

This one:

18 U.S.C. § 1918 - U.S. Code Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 1918 | FindLaw

It is truly amazing that you are not a liberal. Your reading comprehension skills are about on par with my Shih Tzu!

From your link:

Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 of title 5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he--

(1)  advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;

(2)  is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;

(3)  participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia;  or

(4)  is a member of an organization of employees of the Government of the United States or of individuals employed by the government of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the right to strike against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day, or both.

I am sure all of those state legislators are employees of the federal government or the District of Columbia.

Why are you such a dumbass?

Why do you always try to get me on semantics and fail? What part of "or hold" do you not understand?

It's worded very plainly.

What part of "the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia" did you not understand, numbnuts?

You have failed yet again, except to show you to be an undereducated buffoon!

What if "government of the United States" means all the government in The United States?

Let's get real: That garbage is as seditious as it gets and if this was even 100 years ago, they'd all be hanging or tarred and feathered. They would be arrested and hanged for sedition. If you want to get into that, I guarantee there's laws on the books that say that's perfectly legal.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Legal action would come from within the state to deal with such fraud.

And, the state compact will have to wait until such fraud is sorted out.

And the deadline will get blown.

And the SCOTUS will then get involved.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That is called electoral fraud, dope.

No it is not.

If they certified the right results, but disclosed ridiculous numbers, the result was still the same. No other state can have an interest in the results within a particular state.



This will end up in litigation and the SCOTUS will get involved.

.

 

[BlindBoo]

You want I want to see? I want to see the framers of this thing and the legislators that voted for it hammered right into the ground. Removed from office, fined, and given 1 year in the Federal pen for sedition.

Under what law? You sort of forgot that part!

This one:

18 U.S.C. § 1918 - U.S. Code Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 1918 | FindLaw

It is truly amazing that you are not a liberal. Your reading comprehension skills are about on par with my Shih Tzu!

From your link:

Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 of title 5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he--

(1)  advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;

(2)  is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;

(3)  participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia;  or

(4)  is a member of an organization of employees of the Government of the United States or of individuals employed by the government of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the right to strike against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day, or both.

I am sure all of those state legislators are employees of the federal government or the District of Columbia.

Why are you such a dumbass?

The Constitution gives them the duty to choose the EC electors " in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct".

How can carrying out one's Constitutional responsibility be considered advocating for the overthrow of that very constitution?

Legal action would come from within the state to deal with such fraud.

And, the state compact will have to wait until such fraud is sorted out.

And the deadline will get blown.

And the SCOTUS will then get involved.

.

Yes they could, but only if the State's Supreme court didn't rectify the fraud first. It involves the federal election law.

It would be resolved by the following Jan 21st. Remember how quickly the election issue went in Fla in 2000?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No state is required to release their vote totals. They are only require to send electors.

Existing federal law (section 6 of Title 3 of the United States Code) requires that an official count of the popular vote for President from each state be certified and sent to various federal officials in the form of a “Certificate of Ascertainment.”

9.14 Myths about Lack of an Official National Count for Presidential Elections and Secret Elections

Frankly I see several possible unforeseen outcomes to a compact like that. Being unconstitutional isn't one of them

I looked at Title 3, Sec. 6 a second time:

Credentials of electors; transmission to archivist of the united states and to congress; public inspection

§ 6. It shall be the duty of the executive of each State, as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the appointment of the electors in such State by the final ascertainment, under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such ascertainment, to communicate by registered mail under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such ascertainment of the electors appointed, setting forth the names of such electors and the canvass or other ascertainment under the laws of such State of the number of votes given or cast for each person for whose appointment any and all votes have been given or cast; and it shall also thereupon be the duty of the executive of each State to deliver to the electors of such State, on or before the day on which they are required by section 7 of this title to meet, six duplicate-originals of the same certificate under the seal of the State; and if there shall have been any final determination in a State in the manner provided for by law of a controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, it shall be the duty of the executive of such State, as soon as practicable after such determination, to communicate under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such determination in form and manner as the same shall have been made; and the certificate or certificates so received by the Archivist of the United States shall be preserved by him for one year and shall be a part of the public records of his office and shall be open to public inspection; and the Archivist of the United States at the first meeting of Congress thereafter shall transmit to the two Houses of Congress copies in full of each and every such certificate so received at the National Archives and Records Administration.

Doesn't that say that they are only required to give the number of votes for the appointment of each elector?

Texas has 38 electors. All Governor Abbot is required to do is give the number of votes cast to appoint those electors, right?

Not the total of votes or votes cast for the loser.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Who tabulates the national popular vote for the presidential election

• Current federal law provides for an official count of the popular vote for President from each state in the form of a public “Certificate of Ascertainment.”

9.14 Myths about Lack of an Official National Count for Presidential Elections and Secret Elections

But, that only requires the vote totals for the electors appointed.

It does not require disclosure of votes cast for electors NOT appointed.

.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Tissue?

States entering into a compact with one another is unConstitutional, and clearly this is an organized compact.


"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3

Uh-Oh! National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

Constitution of the United States - We the People

States make agreements and compacts all the time without having to ask for the consent of Congress. The courts thus far have ruled the only compacts that infringe on Federal Power need to have the consent of Congress. Which btw, they are planning to ask anyway once they reach the magic number.

Choosing State electors in not a Constitutional Federal Power. The Constitution gives that power exclusively to the state legislators.

This one infringes on Federal power and the Constitution, numbnuts.

Since the Feds don't have the Constitutional power to choose a states electors, what federal power do you think it would infringe on?

Under what law? You sort of forgot that part!

This one:

18 U.S.C. § 1918 - U.S. Code Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 1918 | FindLaw

It is truly amazing that you are not a liberal. Your reading comprehension skills are about on par with my Shih Tzu!

From your link:

Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 of title 5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he--

(1)  advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;

(2)  is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;

(3)  participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia;  or

(4)  is a member of an organization of employees of the Government of the United States or of individuals employed by the government of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the right to strike against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day, or both.

I am sure all of those state legislators are employees of the federal government or the District of Columbia.

Why are you such a dumbass?

Why do you always try to get me on semantics and fail? What part of "or hold" do you not understand?

It's worded very plainly.

What part of "the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia" did you not understand, numbnuts?

You have failed yet again, except to show you to be an undereducated buffoon!

What if "government of the United States" means all the government in The United States?

Let's get real: That garbage is as seditious as it gets and if this was even 100 years ago, they'd all be hanging or tarred and feathered. They would be arrested and hanged for sedition. If you want to get into that, I guarantee there's laws on the books that say that's perfectly legal.

No, that is NOT what it means. Your imagination is on overload. Please shut up, for your own sake!

 

[Marion Morrison]

States entering into a compact with one another is unConstitutional, and clearly this is an organized compact.


"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3

Uh-Oh! National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

Constitution of the United States - We the People

States make agreements and compacts all the time without having to ask for the consent of Congress. The courts thus far have ruled the only compacts that infringe on Federal Power need to have the consent of Congress. Which btw, they are planning to ask anyway once they reach the magic number.

Choosing State electors in not a Constitutional Federal Power. The Constitution gives that power exclusively to the state legislators.

This one infringes on Federal power and the Constitution, numbnuts.

Since the Feds don't have the Constitutional power to choose a states electors, what federal power do you think it would infringe on?

This one:

18 U.S.C. § 1918 - U.S. Code Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 1918 | FindLaw

It is truly amazing that you are not a liberal. Your reading comprehension skills are about on par with my Shih Tzu!

From your link:

Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 of title 5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he--

(1)  advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;

(2)  is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;

(3)  participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia;  or

(4)  is a member of an organization of employees of the Government of the United States or of individuals employed by the government of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the right to strike against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day, or both.

I am sure all of those state legislators are employees of the federal government or the District of Columbia.

Why are you such a dumbass?

Why do you always try to get me on semantics and fail? What part of "or hold" do you not understand?

It's worded very plainly.

What part of "the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia" did you not understand, numbnuts?

You have failed yet again, except to show you to be an undereducated buffoon!

What if "government of the United States" means all the government in The United States?

Let's get real: That garbage is as seditious as it gets and if this was even 100 years ago, they'd all be hanging or tarred and feathered. They would be arrested and hanged for sedition. If you want to get into that, I guarantee there's laws on the books that say that's perfectly legal.

No, that is NOT what it means. Your imagination is on overload. Please shut up, for your own sake!

If it applies to federal government officials, why not state government? Hmm?

Okay, how about this law?

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

Let see you use your semantics to squirm out of this one.
Legislative "force" is still force.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If it applies to federal government officials, why not state government? Hmm?

Okay, how about this law?

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

Let see you use your semantics to squirm out of this one.

Interesting. Would that not also apply to state government officials hindering the execution of immigration laws?

 

[Marion Morrison]

If it applies to federal government officials, why not state government? Hmm?

Okay, how about this law?

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

Let see you use your semantics to squirm out of this one.

Interesting. Would that not also apply to state government officials hindering the execution of immigration laws?

Absolutely.

 

[DOTR]

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 ...

True. Maine voters have now lost their voice. No matter how they vote their votes will be cast for who their government decides.
They should be expelled from the Union.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Thank you OldLady
If you are going to go that route,
why not require the winner to get
the MAJORITY of POPULAR votes AND the most ELECTORAL votes.

And instead of run-offs, have PREFERENTIAL VOTING so that in case of third parties preventing a clear majority, the weighted votes would show who would win if the third parties weren't in the running.

But good luck with that, OldLady
You would still be eliminating any chance of THIRD PARTIES getting votes if everyone is scrambling to vote for either R or D to get one of those to win by majority.

So if TRANSGENDER people who make up a tiny fraction of 1% aren't allowed to be excluded for convenience of everyone else,
CERTAIN the Constitution, Green, Libertarian and other Third Parties that are already being shut out of the two-party biased system SHOULD HAVE MEANS OF BEING REPRESENTED AMONG VOTERS.

That's why I believe we are heading toward Proportional Representation by Party.

It's already discrimination enough against people of minority parties by the R and D parties.

What you are proposing would make the discrimination, exclusion and lack of representation EVEN WORSE.

Again, if LGBT can argue for equal inclusion, we should apply the same standards to argue for INCLUSION of minority party members.

That's the REAL problem that should be addressed here, if we are going to see MEANINGFUL reform of the Electoral system where EVERYONE would benefit from more fair representation regardless of party or size/concentration of voter populations.

Em, Maine is trying to expand ranked choice voting to the President as well. I guess we have to change a word in our state Constitution first. Because there are so many Independents in Maine, we think it is more fair than a simple majority, which you are right does favor the two party system.

That's all I can tell ya.

Ranked choice is far less insidious than the abominable "top 2" jungle primary that LEADS to the EXCLUSION of ALL independents and third parties and even 2nd parties on the general ballot.. That's a political COUP move... Last 2 california senators were chosen with NO ONE else allowed on the ballot but 2 Democrats.

Be quite clear, the 2 party system has gone from merely a dopey, inept, duopoly OCCUPYING our form of Representative govt and making it over in their images to MALIGNANT and stinky in terms of ALL the battles they WANT to fight... You notice MOST of what Congress and the state legislatures have been doing since 2016 are moves to consolidate party power?? And not the business of America???

 

[flacaltenn]

But "ranked choice" at the Presidential general election level is pretty meaningless unless you have more than 2 STRONG candidates... It would be far more useful in party primaries and local elections..

 

[BlindBoo]

No state is required to release their vote totals. They are only require to send electors.

Existing federal law (section 6 of Title 3 of the United States Code) requires that an official count of the popular vote for President from each state be certified and sent to various federal officials in the form of a “Certificate of Ascertainment.”

9.14 Myths about Lack of an Official National Count for Presidential Elections and Secret Elections

Frankly I see several possible unforeseen outcomes to a compact like that. Being unconstitutional isn't one of them

I looked at Title 3, Sec. 6 a second time:

Credentials of electors; transmission to archivist of the united states and to congress; public inspection

§ 6. It shall be the duty of the executive of each State, as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the appointment of the electors in such State by the final ascertainment, under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such ascertainment, to communicate by registered mail under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such ascertainment of the electors appointed, setting forth the names of such electors and the canvass or other ascertainment under the laws of such State of the number of votes given or cast for each person for whose appointment any and all votes have been given or cast; and it shall also thereupon be the duty of the executive of each State to deliver to the electors of such State, on or before the day on which they are required by section 7 of this title to meet, six duplicate-originals of the same certificate under the seal of the State; and if there shall have been any final determination in a State in the manner provided for by law of a controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, it shall be the duty of the executive of such State, as soon as practicable after such determination, to communicate under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such determination in form and manner as the same shall have been made; and the certificate or certificates so received by the Archivist of the United States shall be preserved by him for one year and shall be a part of the public records of his office and shall be open to public inspection; and the Archivist of the United States at the first meeting of Congress thereafter shall transmit to the two Houses of Congress copies in full of each and every such certificate so received at the National Archives and Records Administration.

Doesn't that say that they are only required to give the number of votes for the appointment of each elector?

Texas has 38 electors. All Governor Abbot is required to do is give the number of votes cast to appoint those electors, right?

Not the total of votes or votes cast for the loser.

Sorry champ. That means it includes all votes for all electors, not just the winner of the election. For example:

https://www.archives.gov/federal-re...016-certificates/pdfs/ascertainment-texas.pdf

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Thank you OldLady
If you are going to go that route,
why not require the winner to get
the MAJORITY of POPULAR votes AND the most ELECTORAL votes.

And instead of run-offs, have PREFERENTIAL VOTING so that in case of third parties preventing a clear majority, the weighted votes would show who would win if the third parties weren't in the running.

But good luck with that, OldLady
You would still be eliminating any chance of THIRD PARTIES getting votes if everyone is scrambling to vote for either R or D to get one of those to win by majority.

So if TRANSGENDER people who make up a tiny fraction of 1% aren't allowed to be excluded for convenience of everyone else,
CERTAIN the Constitution, Green, Libertarian and other Third Parties that are already being shut out of the two-party biased system SHOULD HAVE MEANS OF BEING REPRESENTED AMONG VOTERS.

That's why I believe we are heading toward Proportional Representation by Party.

It's already discrimination enough against people of minority parties by the R and D parties.

What you are proposing would make the discrimination, exclusion and lack of representation EVEN WORSE.

Again, if LGBT can argue for equal inclusion, we should apply the same standards to argue for INCLUSION of minority party members.

That's the REAL problem that should be addressed here, if we are going to see MEANINGFUL reform of the Electoral system where EVERYONE would benefit from more fair representation regardless of party or size/concentration of voter populations.

The reason you can't require BOTH national pop vote AND electoral college is simple... The partisan warriors focused on over-turning the electoral college seem to forget that there are WORSE "undemocratic" institutions than the Electoral College.. Like the SENATE for instance which is FAR LESS "democratic" than the Electoral College..

And what happens if no candidate gets a majority of E-volts? It goes to the House for President and the Senate for Vice President.. In the House EACH STATE gets one vote.. Meaning that RESULT might not represent the popular vote anyways.. And in the Senate for Vice President - well -- there's ZERO connection to the popular vote...

That whole process is a "border wall" right now should an INDEPENDENT or 3rd party place in the top 2 spots in a Presidential election... It's another form of "padding the nest" for that infestation of the 2 party system....