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

[bodecea]

Sounds to me like a perverted form of voter suppression

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

also sounds like a strong SCOTUS issue!

Because you don't like it? The constitution is perfectly clear. Each state chooses the method for appointing electors. Period. Get over it, snowflake.

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

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

No, not always....some states have their electoral votes set up to split based on percentages for both candidates. Why? Because states are allowed to set it up that way.

 

[bodecea]

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 ...

wah wah wah wah wah wah wah
we won the popular vote with NYC and LA wah wah wah wah wah

the left is ridiculous desperado fuckin losers, fags, pussies, misfits, and well read idiots

What's gonna be a gas is that if THEY don't get overturned with this move to hobble the Electoral College, is that if TRUMP WINS the popular vote --- there's gonna be a massive "kiss and cry" pity party about the UNICOLOR of the election map.. Trump COULD end up getting ALL delegates from all of those deranged mental midget states...

I WANNA SEE THAT... Just for the yucks.... See them FAIL AGAIN in their shananigans to obtain uncontested power.

"Trump wins the popular vote"....well, that certainly would be a first.

 

[bodecea]

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 ...

Show me where in the Constitution it prevents a state from deciding how it's Electoral Votes go. Hint: it's not in there. It's totally up to each state to make their own rules/laws on how the set number of Electoral Votes are distributed.

A provision contained in Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution, which states, "No State shall, without the consent of Congress … enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State."

And what agreement or compact is that?

 

[bodecea]

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 ...

This is the worst way to try to fix the problem.
The best way I can see is to split the Electoral Votes
where they are divided proportionally per candidate.

I would further support the Third Party members to sue or petition
to revise this to be more effective in INCLUDING other parties as well.
For example, expanding the Electoral College reps so that all parties
are represented proportionally per District. So when votes are divided,
all the parties participating receive Electors and Votes proportionally.

That would be more fair, and prevent discrimination by creed.
If only the party that gets the majority votes gets representation,
this isn't treating citizens of other creeds with equal inclusion, representation and protection.

So this is even more unconstitutional in further oppressing and denying
equal representation,
because it makes the problem of partisan dominance in govt even WORSE!

Some states do it that way already.

 

[Third Party]

I am pretty sure the states can appoint electors, but electors can vote any way they choose. If they want to vote for a goldfish, they can.

In 1968, an elector voted for George Wallace even though Nixon won the state.

 

[ding]

I always knew Maine was screwy.

 

[percysunshine]

I am pretty sure the states can appoint electors, but electors can vote any way they choose. If they want to vote for a goldfish, they can.

In 1968, an elector voted for George Wallace even though Nixon won the state.

Another example of the Goldfish rule.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.

No it isn't. States rights.

States right to be stupid like libs are. Idiots.

Like Alabama and Georgia?

Lie cali and New York.

 

[hadit]

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 ...

It's probably constitutional for states to do that, but I await the reaction of liberal CA residents the first time they see their electors go to a Republican even though they voted overwhelmingly for a democrat.

Republicans never had a chance to win California, now they do

They should be thrilled

Thrilled because people found a way to circumvent the Constitution? While Republicans winning California and the accompanying angst among liberals would be very entertaining, I think the cost would be very high. Short term thinking and all that.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Sounds to me like a perverted form of voter suppression

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

also sounds like a strong SCOTUS issue!

Because you don't like it? The constitution is perfectly clear. Each state chooses the method for appointing electors. Period. Get over it, snowflake.

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

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

No, not always....some states have their electoral votes set up to split based on percentages for both candidates. Why? Because states are allowed to set it up that way.

Ok but 100% of the electoral votes going AGAINST the winner in that state is not legal. I promise it will end up in the supreme court.

It's really telling when liberals are so whiny that since they can't win the game, they have to try to change the rules.

Sad, really.

 

[rightwinger]

Maine Senate passes bill giving state's electoral votes to national popular vote winner
Soooo, why bother to turn out the vote

Because you vote will count towards the popular vote

 

[airplanemechanic]

Maine Senate passes bill giving state's electoral votes to national popular vote winner
Soooo, why bother to turn out the vote

Because you vote will count towards the popular vote

We do not elect a president based on popular vote.

See the constitution. I can promise that if a states entire electoral college voting block goes AGAINST the person who won that state the voter suppression lawsuits would count in the tens of thousands.

 

[rightwinger]

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 ...

It's probably constitutional for states to do that, but I await the reaction of liberal CA residents the first time they see their electors go to a Republican even though they voted overwhelmingly for a democrat.

Republicans never had a chance to win California, now they do

They should be thrilled

Thrilled because people found a way to circumvent the Constitution? While Republicans winning California and the accompanying angst among liberals would be very entertaining, I think the cost would be very high. Short term thinking and all that.

Can you show me he words that are being circumvented?

 

[airplanemechanic]

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 ...

It's probably constitutional for states to do that, but I await the reaction of liberal CA residents the first time they see their electors go to a Republican even though they voted overwhelmingly for a democrat.

Republicans never had a chance to win California, now they do

They should be thrilled

Thrilled because people found a way to circumvent the Constitution? While Republicans winning California and the accompanying angst among liberals would be very entertaining, I think the cost would be very high. Short term thinking and all that.

Can you show me he words that are being circumvented?

The whole "electoral college" part. Ya know, the 12th amendment.

Back when the 12th amendment was ratified, they had no way of knowing the popular vote per state that quickly so of course when they say that the one with the most votes shall be president the one with the most votes in that state shall get the electoral college votes of that state.

There have been many elections when the ultimate winner of the popular vote wasn't the winner of the election because of the skewed nature of the population of the country. But making it to where the two coasts determine the president for the rest of the nation is not legal and is not how the constitution was set up.

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[a]"

No, there is no FEDERAL law requiring electors to vote according to how they pledged, but a majority of STATES have passed laws requiring it.

 

[rightwinger]

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 ...

It's probably constitutional for states to do that, but I await the reaction of liberal CA residents the first time they see their electors go to a Republican even though they voted overwhelmingly for a democrat.

Republicans never had a chance to win California, now they do

They should be thrilled

Thrilled because people found a way to circumvent the Constitution? While Republicans winning California and the accompanying angst among liberals would be very entertaining, I think the cost would be very high. Short term thinking and all that.

Can you show me he words that are being circumvented?

The whole "electoral college" part. Ya know, the 12th amendment.

Back when the 12th amendment was ratified, they had no way of knowing the popular vote per state that quickly so of course when they say that the one with the most votes shall be president the one with the most votes in that state shall get the electoral college votes of that state.

There have been many elections when the ultimate winner of the popular vote wasn't the winner of the election because of the skewed nature of the population of the country. But making it to where the two coasts determine the president for the rest of the nation is not legal and is not how the constitution was set up.

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[a]"

Exactly

Nowhere in there tells a state the criteria they shall use to assign their votes
Doesn’t even mention the states people voting....just the electors

 

[airplanemechanic]

It's probably constitutional for states to do that, but I await the reaction of liberal CA residents the first time they see their electors go to a Republican even though they voted overwhelmingly for a democrat.

Republicans never had a chance to win California, now they do

They should be thrilled

Thrilled because people found a way to circumvent the Constitution? While Republicans winning California and the accompanying angst among liberals would be very entertaining, I think the cost would be very high. Short term thinking and all that.

Can you show me he words that are being circumvented?

The whole "electoral college" part. Ya know, the 12th amendment.

Back when the 12th amendment was ratified, they had no way of knowing the popular vote per state that quickly so of course when they say that the one with the most votes shall be president the one with the most votes in that state shall get the electoral college votes of that state.

There have been many elections when the ultimate winner of the popular vote wasn't the winner of the election because of the skewed nature of the population of the country. But making it to where the two coasts determine the president for the rest of the nation is not legal and is not how the constitution was set up.

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[a]"

Exactly

Nowhere in there tells a state the criteria they shall use to assign their votes
Doesn’t even mention the states people voting....just the electors

Wrong. A majority of states have passed laws requiring their electors vote according to how they pledged in that state. It doesn't HAVE to be federal law, it can be state law. Only two states differ. Maine and Nebraska.

You're opening up a can of worms to go by popular vote. What if a candidate lost by 1000 votes nationwide? He could easily demand a recount of every vote in every state. It could take months to figure out who actually won in a close election. There are votes that come in from overseas that are not counted for weeks after the general. We couldn't determine our president for months after all litigation had taken place.

 

[Crepitus]

Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.

No it isn't. States rights.

Funny, a lib relying on the states rights position.

We've always been about states rights. It's you guys who want to rule everything with federal laws.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.

No it isn't. States rights.

Funny, a lib relying on the states rights position.

We've always been about states rights.

When it came to slavery, anyway.

 

[Crepitus]

Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.

No it isn't. States rights.

Funny, a lib relying on the states rights position.

We've always been about states rights.

When it came to slavery, anyway.

When it comes to almost everything.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.

No it isn't. States rights.

Funny, a lib relying on the states rights position.

We've always been about states rights.

When it came to slavery, anyway.

When it comes to almost everything.

How about abortion?