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

[Desperado]

This is sure to end up in the Supreme Court before all is said and done

 

[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

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

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

.

Each party appoints it's electors. They list all votes. Here:

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

 

[hadit]

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?

Within their state. Once they disenfranchise a single voter, it becomes a Federal problem.

Gerrymandering districts disenfranchises voter. SC said that's not a problem.

Exactly. The SC said. They're going to rule on this as well.

When did they state that. considering it is not in effect? SCOTUS does not rule on laws unless a case has been through the courts, and this one has not been, because it hasn't happened yet.

I'm predicting it will end up there.

 

[flacaltenn]

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....

But the first betrayal came when the States changed how electors should vote in their states, the ''WINNER takes all Electors'', instead of Electors voting how their population within their State voted, for president.

WINNER TAKES ALL electors of the State, is the problem, and the states changed it to that a decade or two after we became a Nation. Madison was pissed they did that...

Winner takes all, betrays all.

That's a valid point of view. Madison never envisioned a "well dug in" 2 party duopoly.. The founders WARNED us about that...

But "winner take all" is not implemented in every state. It's a choice. In Tenn for example (and IIRC about 8 other states) -- the ballots are VERY LONG because the VOTERS choose the electors based on the stated "choice" of the elector at election time.. This INCLUDES electors pledging themselves to Independents or 3rd parties that appear on the ballots.. Which is far more transparent and democrat that most states where this process of choosing of electors is 100% political...

Winner takes All is not bad from the prospective that electors are APPORTIONED more democratically than the Senate is.. Because the NUMBER is the number of House + Senate seats..

After years of working ballot access, debate access, and voting "reforms" for the Libertarians and Independents and even Greens -- my most important revelation is that ALL Presidential elections issues need to be solved on STATE level... Because that's where the Constitution left the power to decide....

 

[emilynghiem]

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....

1. If nobody gets a majority that's where I'm saying to revise this
where preferential voting would determine that without needing a runoff.

2. I didn't go into detail as I have previously, but I believe we would also
benefit from splitting either the President/VP or two positions each
for INTERNAL and EXTERNAL roles. The INTERNAL roles would NOT
succeed to the Presidency but focus on domestic policies and programs
to shift unconstitutional duties AWAY from federal govt (except where
everyone agrees to keep them there) and BACK to people and states.
And these roles/positions would NOT interfere with the current duties
of foreign/military policy and interstate commerce that is within federal
jurisdiction by the Constitution.

Our govt has grown so convoluted with contested/unconstitutional
bureaucracies added on, that people/states have grown DEPENDENT on these.
So reforms to shift the responsibility for such programs BACK to states and people
would require FULL TIME JOBS separate from the traditional Constitutional duties/roles.

If we DID get wise and set up a separate administrative system/positions for SOCIAL PROGRAMS,
then the Democrats and progressive leaders who want to be in charge of SOCIAL ISSUES
could have jobs representing THAT.

So we could have either mixed tickets or separate internal positions
connected with the administrations while having Constitutionalist leaders
in Executive positions keeping federal govt limited to its originally defined purpose.

That way, we could get major parties to agree to elect their best reps
to equal positions without competing for the SAME JOBS. And we
could get a real "majority" election result instead of splitting votes
between competing parties. They could ALL have jobs if we set it up better.
So when they run in mixed teams, agreeing in advance as part of their platforms
WHICH people/parties would be working with their admin through WHICH jobs/duties,
then people could vote and get all their interests represented under ONE ticket,
not several competing tickets where only one party can get elected over the others.

 

[Care4all]

In Tenn for example (and IIRC about 8 other states) -- the ballots are VERY LONG because the VOTERS choose the electors based on the stated "choice" of the elector at election time.. This INCLUDES electors pledging themselves to Independents or 3rd parties that appear on the ballots.. Which is far more transparent and democrat that most states where this process of choosing of electors is 100% political...

I DID NOT KNOW THAT on Tennessee! That does seem much more democratic than this Winner Take All State electors thing...

Maine, imo, did it fairly, before this proposal mentioned above, as well...

Each congressional district, has one elector, plus the State govt has 2 electors representing our US Senators.

So in 2016, District 1 went to Clinton and she got 1 elector for it, District 2 went to Trump and he got 1 elector for his district win, and Clinton won the overall popular vote in Maine, so the State gave their 2 electors representing the US Senators, to her.

 

[wamose]

Why the hell would they do that? It's kinda like telling the people of Maine that they're too stupid to pick their President. Are they going with the national vote for primaries too? What the hell is happening up there? Were they invaded by nincompoops? I didn't think the Bush family and a gang of Somalians could do so much damage.

 

[flacaltenn]

In Tenn for example (and IIRC about 8 other states) -- the ballots are VERY LONG because the VOTERS choose the electors based on the stated "choice" of the elector at election time.. This INCLUDES electors pledging themselves to Independents or 3rd parties that appear on the ballots.. Which is far more transparent and democrat that most states where this process of choosing of electors is 100% political...

I DID NOT KNOW THAT on Tennessee! That does seem much more democratic than this Winner Take All State electors thing...

Maine, imo, did it fairly, before this proposal mentioned above, as well...

Each congressional district, has one elector, plus the State govt has 2 electors representing our US Senators.

So in 2016, District 1 went to Clinton and she got 1 elector for it, District 2 went to Trump and he got 1 elector for his district win, and Clinton won the overall popular vote in Maine, so the State gave their 2 electors representing the US Senators, to her.

Quite happy with KNOWING the names of my electors here. And being given the pleasure of selecting them.. It's a "state thing"... And the more folks learn about the "50 state experiment" in democracy and can SEE the all choices, the more they pressure their state to adopt wiser and better processes....

To my knowledge, that decision by Maine to NOT respect their own proportional allocation of those districts in 2016 is a sham that should be addressed.. I think I remember that Maine "held out" their certification of electors while fighting over this... This is political horseshit.. And we don't make rules as we go along about elections...

PARTIES can make any arbitrary decisions they want to based on emergency situational need.. Like when Bernie beats the crap out of Hillary in a state and walks away with FAR FEWER delegates to the convention. Or when the DNC walks in and arbitrarily ADDS delegates to the state convention after the vote...

My opinion is that PRIMARIES ought to be "party affairs".. The Dems and Repubs are LOSING loyal followers like crazy... It's time to set them wild again and NOT have the state political powers entangled in their nomination processes...

The Libertarian party is an "open call" for delegates.. We don't RUN primaries like Independents don't run primaries... And everyone is HAPPY with the grass roots feel of that. EXCEPT when you get a guy who decides to strip to undies and parade around while the CSPAN cameras are rolling....

That's what REAL democracy in action "looks like"....

 

[Marion Morrison]

In Tenn for example (and IIRC about 8 other states) -- the ballots are VERY LONG because the VOTERS choose the electors based on the stated "choice" of the elector at election time.. This INCLUDES electors pledging themselves to Independents or 3rd parties that appear on the ballots.. Which is far more transparent and democrat that most states where this process of choosing of electors is 100% political...

I DID NOT KNOW THAT on Tennessee! That does seem much more democratic than this Winner Take All State electors thing...

Maine, imo, did it fairly, before this proposal mentioned above, as well...

Each congressional district, has one elector, plus the State govt has 2 electors representing our US Senators.

So in 2016, District 1 went to Clinton and she got 1 elector for it, District 2 went to Trump and he got 1 elector for his district win, and Clinton won the overall popular vote in Maine, so the State gave their 2 electors representing the US Senators, to her.

Quite happy with KNOWING the names of my electors here. And being given the pleasure of selecting them.. It's a "state thing"... And the more folks learn about the "50 state experiment" in democracy and can SEE the all choices, the more they pressure their state to adopt wiser and better processes....

To my knowledge, that decision by Maine to NOT respect their own proportional allocation of those districts in 2016 is a sham that should be addressed.. I think I remember that Maine "held out" their certification of electors while fighting over this... This is political horseshit.. And we don't make rules as we go along about elections...

PARTIES can make any arbitrary decisions they want to based on emergency situational need.. Like when Bernie beats the crap out of Hillary in a state and walks away with FAR FEWER delegates to the convention. Or when the DNC walks in and arbitrarily ADDS delegates to the state convention after the vote...

My opinion is that PRIMARIES ought to be "party affairs".. The Dems and Repubs are LOSING loyal followers like crazy... It's time to set them wild again and NOT have the state political powers entangled in their nomination processes...

The Libertarian party is an "open call" for delegates.. We don't RUN primaries like Independents don't run primaries... And everyone is HAPPY with the grass roots feel of that. EXCEPT when you get a guy who decides to strip to undies and parade around while the CSPAN cameras are rolling....

That's what REAL democracy in action "looks like"....

I'm still mad we don't get to choose our electors.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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?

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.

Because you are an idiot who does not know the difference in a local. State, or US government employee.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

"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?

Within their state. Once they disenfranchise a single voter, it becomes a Federal problem.

Gerrymandering districts disenfranchises voter. SC said that's not a problem.

Exactly. The SC said. They're going to rule on this as well.

When did they state that. considering it is not in effect? SCOTUS does not rule on laws unless a case has been through the courts, and this one has not been, because it hasn't happened yet.

I'm predicting it will end up there.

That is not what you said.

 

[Blackrook]

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

No, they can't. It is unconstitutional to deprive the people of a state of meaningful participation in a national election.

 

[candycorn]

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 ...

I don’t know what to make of it….

On one hand, it would seem as though Maine and Nebraska have been outliers in the whole electoral college as they have proportional awarding of their state’s votes and have for some time.
So it would seem as though the door has been opened to allow a state to award it’s electoral votes any way it seems fit.

Also, if the winner of the Presidency is not predicated on the winner getting more votes from the voters; it would seem as though the “voter suppression” angle that you brought up would be moot since it’s a clear argument that the winner of both 2000 and 2016 didn’t get the most votes.

That being said, there is something fundamentally wrong with Trump getting 80% in Utah (for an example) and not getting Utah’s electoral votes or…if you prefer…Kamala Harris getting 80% in California and not getting Cali’s electoral votes.

So I disagree with a state doing this; awarding their votes based on the whims of voters in other states. But I don’t see a legal argument that could derail it.

 

[DJT for Life]

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?

Within their state. Once they disenfranchise a single voter, it becomes a Federal problem.

Gerrymandering districts disenfranchises voter. SC said that's not a problem.

That does not disenfranchise voters. In every race there will be a winner and a loser. The Legislatures of each state are
free to draw up their own boundaries. That's what the SCOTUS wrote.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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 ...

I don’t know what to make of it….

On one hand, it would seem as though Maine and Nebraska have been outliers in the whole electoral college as they have proportional awarding of their state’s votes and have for some time.
So it would seem as though the door has been opened to allow a state to award it’s electoral votes any way it seems fit.

Also, if the winner of the Presidency is not predicated on the winner getting more votes from the voters; it would seem as though the “voter suppression” angle that you brought up would be moot since it’s a clear argument that the winner of both 2000 and 2016 didn’t get the most votes.

That being said, there is something fundamentally wrong with Trump getting 80% in Utah (for an example) and not getting Utah’s electoral votes or…if you prefer…Kamala Harris getting 80% in California and not getting Cali’s electoral votes.

So I disagree with a state doing this; awarding their votes based on the whims of voters in other states. But I don’t see a legal argument that could derail it.

They do not have "proportional awarding of their state's votes". If that were true, Clinton would have won two and Trump would have won two in the state of Maine.

Maine and Nebraska award their electoral votes based on who wins in each Congressional District receiving that electoral vote and who wins the state's popular vote receives two electoral votes.

In Maine, Trump won one district as did HRC, but she won the popular vote and an additional two votes.

Democrats will not support this plan for other states, because Hillary would have been crushed even more!

In Nebraska, Trump took all 5 electoral votes in 2016.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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 ...

I don’t know what to make of it….

On one hand, it would seem as though Maine and Nebraska have been outliers in the whole electoral college as they have proportional awarding of their state’s votes and have for some time.
So it would seem as though the door has been opened to allow a state to award it’s electoral votes any way it seems fit.

Also, if the winner of the Presidency is not predicated on the winner getting more votes from the voters; it would seem as though the “voter suppression” angle that you brought up would be moot since it’s a clear argument that the winner of both 2000 and 2016 didn’t get the most votes.

That being said, there is something fundamentally wrong with Trump getting 80% in Utah (for an example) and not getting Utah’s electoral votes or…if you prefer…Kamala Harris getting 80% in California and not getting Cali’s electoral votes.

So I disagree with a state doing this; awarding their votes based on the whims of voters in other states. But I don’t see a legal argument that could derail it.

Didn't read the thread again? Those arguments are well documented throughout the thread. Oh, wait! I forgot you are a libtard and unable to read and comprehend.

 

[basquebromance]

"Maine's electoral vote"

all 4 of them! lol

 

[Care4all]

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?

Within their state. Once they disenfranchise a single voter, it becomes a Federal problem.

Gerrymandering districts disenfranchises voter. SC said that's not a problem.

That does not disenfranchise voters. In every race there will be a winner and a loser. The Legislatures of each state are
free to draw up their own boundaries. That's what the SCOTUS wrote.

the founders didn't envision, computer programs and data gathering (down to the citizen itself), that could show the result of an election years before it took place and before the candidates are even known, by drawing those digital lines....

 

[Blackrook]

This interstate compact is so blatantly unconstitutional that it won't survive the first challenge. It's too bad the Democrats think our Constitution is just a roll of toilet paper to be shat upon.

 

[BlindBoo]

That does not disenfranchise voters.

If you say so, but remember your position when the Dems flip a few states and start redistricting to favor Democrats.