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

[Stormy Daniels]

It's always been that the majority candidate gets the electoral votes of that state.

Not it hasn't.

 

[OldLady]

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 will be pronounced dead on arrival in the supreme court.

When do you expect that to happen? 14 states are already signed on.
We will have to wait until after the 2020 election before it is even approached, won't we? Otherwise, someone would already be looking to bring it to the Justices.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Ok but 100% of the electoral votes going AGAINST the winner in that state is not legal.

It is if the state legislature enacts it thusly. They alone determine the method. Period.

 

[DJT for Life]

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and the District of Columbia have all committed to the pact. The most recent addition, New Mexico, put the total at 189 electoral votes....
Add Maine and you have 193

Leaving 77 to reach 270

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

States are not allowed to circumvent the Constitution. They can apportion votes from within their own state. But It will take a constitution
convention to change to a popular vote. It is that fucking simple.

Type whatever you want, complain, moan and/or groan...It is all irrelevant. This is just theater. Go find 2/3's of the States to call for
a constitution convention and then find 3/4's of the states to ratify the change. Anything else and you can forget it.

It would only take one voter from one state to sue...SCOTUS would rule within a week and that State could very likely have their Electoral
Votes stricken from the election.

I don’t see anything in the Constitution telling states how they can assign EVs

We have a Conservative court which mostly follow the Constitution to the letter. Unless they are completely partisan Republicans, they would have to rule for the states

They would rule that the States cannot circumvent the Constitution. How the States want to apportion their Electoral votes in their states is their
business, but they cannot vote with the people of another State. That is Text Book..."State's Rights."

This is just more foolishness by the Dems.

 

[justoffal]

Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.

How so? The Constitution clearly leaves it up to the states as to how they count and distribute Electoral Votes. Read Article II sometime.

They can split them in different directions
But they cannot change the result.
If Trump won by 60/ 40 in a state with ten electoral votes...he gets six in a split. That's as far as the Scotus will allow.

You cannot disenfranchise the State result.
Trust me that will be the SCOTUS decision.

Jo

It's not up to the SCOTUS. The Constitution already gave the sole power to the States to decide how they choose. The only thing the court will decide is if Congress must give it's consent or not. If legal precedent holds (not a certainty anymore) Congressional consent will not be required for those state to choose their elector in the exact same fashion.

You are just plain wrong. The scotus will decide whether the votes will be entered into the federal record or rejected. Maine can offer 400 electoral votes if they choose to offer them. They won't be accepted however.

Jo

You think the SCOTUS will strike down the Constitution and tell the states they don't have the right to choose their own electors? I disagree. The number of elector is not determined by the State legislatures.

Nope....the state can make every citizen an elector if they want... It simply won't be accepted by the Federal Government ( because ultimately it's a federal system) neither will a scenario be accepted wherein the state reverses the choice of its voters by ignoring their popular choice and throwing all of the electors to a random candidate.....sorry you're just wrong. It would be immediately tied up in Federal court by voters rights groups who would quickly prevail.


But go ahead....do try it!


Jo

 

[DJT for Life]

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and the District of Columbia have all committed to the pact. The most recent addition, New Mexico, put the total at 189 electoral votes....
Add Maine and you have 193

Leaving 77 to reach 270

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

States are not allowed to circumvent the Constitution. They can apportion votes from within their own state. But It will take a constitution
convention to change to a popular vote. It is that fucking simple.

Type whatever you want, complain, moan and/or groan...It is all irrelevant. This is just theater. Go find 2/3's of the States to call for
a constitution convention and then find 3/4's of the states to ratify the change. Anything else and you can forget it.

It would only take one voter from one state to sue...SCOTUS would rule within a week and that State could very likely have their Electoral
Votes stricken from the election.

What in the Constitution is circumvented by states setting up how their Electors base their College votes? Read Article II and show us where this idea would go against the Constitution. Show us.

We elect Presidents by the Electoral College...not by Popular Vote. The only way to institute a popular vote is thru a Constitutional Convention.
States will not be allowed to go around that.

 

[rightwinger]

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and the District of Columbia have all committed to the pact. The most recent addition, New Mexico, put the total at 189 electoral votes....
Add Maine and you have 193

Leaving 77 to reach 270

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

States are not allowed to circumvent the Constitution. They can apportion votes from within their own state. But It will take a constitution
convention to change to a popular vote. It is that fucking simple.

Type whatever you want, complain, moan and/or groan...It is all irrelevant. This is just theater. Go find 2/3's of the States to call for
a constitution convention and then find 3/4's of the states to ratify the change. Anything else and you can forget it.

It would only take one voter from one state to sue...SCOTUS would rule within a week and that State could very likely have their Electoral
Votes stricken from the election.

I don’t see anything in the Constitution telling states how they can assign EVs

We have a Conservative court which mostly follow the Constitution to the letter. Unless they are completely partisan Republicans, they would have to rule for the states

They would rule that the States cannot circumvent the Constitution. How the States want to apportion their Electoral votes in their states is their
business, but they cannot vote with the people of another State. That is Text Book..."State's Rights."

This is just more foolishness by the Dems.

You have repeatedly been asked to identify the part of the Constitution that is being violated

Just because you don’t like something doesn’t make it unconstitutional

 

[rightwinger]

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and the District of Columbia have all committed to the pact. The most recent addition, New Mexico, put the total at 189 electoral votes....
Add Maine and you have 193

Leaving 77 to reach 270

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

States are not allowed to circumvent the Constitution. They can apportion votes from within their own state. But It will take a constitution
convention to change to a popular vote. It is that fucking simple.

Type whatever you want, complain, moan and/or groan...It is all irrelevant. This is just theater. Go find 2/3's of the States to call for
a constitution convention and then find 3/4's of the states to ratify the change. Anything else and you can forget it.

It would only take one voter from one state to sue...SCOTUS would rule within a week and that State could very likely have their Electoral
Votes stricken from the election.

What in the Constitution is circumvented by states setting up how their Electors base their College votes? Read Article II and show us where this idea would go against the Constitution. Show us.

We elect Presidents by the Electoral College...not by Popular Vote. The only way to institute a popular vote is thru a Constitutional Convention.
States will not be allowed to go around that.

The President will still be elected by the EC

 

[justoffal]

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and the District of Columbia have all committed to the pact. The most recent addition, New Mexico, put the total at 189 electoral votes....
Add Maine and you have 193

Leaving 77 to reach 270

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

States are not allowed to circumvent the Constitution. They can apportion votes from within their own state. But It will take a constitution
convention to change to a popular vote. It is that fucking simple.

Type whatever you want, complain, moan and/or groan...It is all irrelevant. This is just theater. Go find 2/3's of the States to call for
a constitution convention and then find 3/4's of the states to ratify the change. Anything else and you can forget it.

It would only take one voter from one state to sue...SCOTUS would rule within a week and that State could very likely have their Electoral
Votes stricken from the election.

I don’t see anything in the Constitution telling states how they can assign EVs

We have a Conservative court which mostly follow the Constitution to the letter. Unless they are completely partisan Republicans, they would have to rule for the states

They would rule that the States cannot circumvent the Constitution. How the States want to apportion their Electoral votes in their states is their
business, but they cannot vote with the people of another State. That is Text Book..."State's Rights."

This is just more foolishness by the Dems.

Exxxxxxxxactly.....

Maine can't call it's votes California's votes nor vice versa.

Sheesh they must be getting some very negative inside polling numbers for them to be trying to pull this kind of shit.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

Can you show me he words that are being circumvented?

It is the intent that is being circumvented. Clearly, the states were to elect the president, and the electoral college was designed to give smaller states a louder voice in the process. If the intent was the popular vote, the electoral college would not have been created.

States can decide on whether they want a louder voice or not

Nope. We have a US Constitution. This bill isn't going anywhere. It's nothing but leftist masturbation. Have fun.

So...show us in the Constitution where this isn't allowed.

The Electoral College in Article 2, Section 1, and the 12th Amendment. Now you show me where a state can give all their electoral votes to the winner of the National popular vote. You can't. Idiot.

It's a red herring anyway because it's a federal official who actually enters the credits on to the federal ledger. They can say anything crazy thing they want but the federal election commission will not cooperate with them and the electoral votes will be assigned where they belong. Electors are not super delegates. They are merely ceremonial rubber stamps who cannot change the function of their office on a federal level.
In state they can make Golden Retrievers the electors if they do choose.....good luck bringing it to the election commission.

Jo

 

[hadit]

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 requires congressional consent before the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact can be enforced. Less than that would go to the Court.

Keep in mind that should a state's voters choose one candidate, and the state gives the votes to the opponent, the lives of those state officials would likely be worth less than spit.

States enter into agreements that do not infringe on federal authority all the time without consent. The States already have the right to decide how they choose their electors. No consent is needed for the pact, however they do intend to ask for it if or when they get enough states.

It would likely increase voter turnout.

Is that a good idea or not?

An increase in voter turnout is not a good idea in the minds of the GOP.

Oh, it's a good idea. I can see a whole bunch of people turning out to vote against a left coast candidate, hoping to force California to vote for a Republican.

 

[justoffal]

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?

It is the intent that is being circumvented. Clearly, the states were to elect the president, and the electoral college was designed to give smaller states a louder voice in the process. If the intent was the popular vote, the electoral college would not have been created.

States can decide on whether they want a louder voice or not

Nope. We have a US Constitution. This bill isn't going anywhere. It's nothing but leftist masturbation. Have fun.

So...show us in the Constitution where this isn't allowed.

The Constitution does not specifically disallow you from fucking your cat either.

Jo

 

[Preacher]

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 ...

They passed 3 laws that are horrible. They removed vaccine choice from parents and they also passed a bill forcing mainecare which is state medicaid to pay for murdering babies.

 

[justoffal]

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 ...

They passed 3 laws that are horrible. They removed vaccine choice from parents and they also passed a bill forcing mainecare which is state medicaid to pay for murdering babies.

They will all be over-turned...As will the most recent Alabama law.

 

[LeeOnLido]

If it was illegal then all the states that practice it would have been told to stop, yet a state can determine how the votes are cast by the electoral college reps..

god forbid the state of Guam tries to pull this stunt

 

[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 ...

They passed 3 laws that are horrible. They removed vaccine choice from parents and they also passed a bill forcing mainecare which is state medicaid to pay for murdering babies.

They will all be over-turned...As will the most recent Alabama law.

On what grounds? States can always make laws more strict that the gov't, they can't make them LESS strict. That's why no state can make it legal to possess weed because it's a federal crime to do so. That would be making a law less strict than feds, and you can't do that. Federal law says its legal to kill babies, state law now says it's not. It couldn't go the other way. Alabama can't legalize anything the feds deem illegal, but they can make ILLEGAL anything they so choose.

States are still allowed to pass laws they deem necessary for their state's residents.

 

[DJT for Life]

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and the District of Columbia have all committed to the pact. The most recent addition, New Mexico, put the total at 189 electoral votes....
Add Maine and you have 193

Leaving 77 to reach 270

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

States are not allowed to circumvent the Constitution. They can apportion votes from within their own state. But It will take a constitution
convention to change to a popular vote. It is that fucking simple.

Type whatever you want, complain, moan and/or groan...It is all irrelevant. This is just theater. Go find 2/3's of the States to call for
a constitution convention and then find 3/4's of the states to ratify the change. Anything else and you can forget it.

It would only take one voter from one state to sue...SCOTUS would rule within a week and that State could very likely have their Electoral
Votes stricken from the election.

I don’t see anything in the Constitution telling states how they can assign EVs

We have a Conservative court which mostly follow the Constitution to the letter. Unless they are completely partisan Republicans, they would have to rule for the states

They would rule that the States cannot circumvent the Constitution. How the States want to apportion their Electoral votes in their states is their
business, but they cannot vote with the people of another State. That is Text Book..."State's Rights."

This is just more foolishness by the Dems.

You have repeatedly been asked to identify the part of the Constitution that is being violated

Just because you don’t like something doesn’t make it unconstitutional

And I have explained that we do not elect a President thru a popular vote. I would have thought you would have known that.
A state can only cast its electoral votes on how the citizens of their State votes, not some other state. If a State, and we'll use
Maine as an example, were to cast a majority of votes for a GOP candidate, it would never be allowed for the State to totally
disenfranchise their entire State. You're dreamin', Boy.

 

[justoffal]

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 ...

They passed 3 laws that are horrible. They removed vaccine choice from parents and they also passed a bill forcing mainecare which is state medicaid to pay for murdering babies.

They will all be over-turned...As will the most recent Alabama law.

On what grounds? States can always make laws more strict that the gov't, they can't make them LESS strict. That's why no state can make it legal to possess weed because it's a federal crime to do so. That would be making a law less strict than feds, and you can't do that. Federal law says its legal to kill babies, state law now says it's not. It couldn't go the other way. Alabama can't legalize anything the feds deem illegal, but they can make ILLEGAL anything they so choose.

States are still allowed to pass laws they deem necessary for their state's residents.

Yes I agree with you 100% on the parliamentary procedures of Federal legislation versus State legislation. The remaining question is whether or not the laws infringe on the rights of any specific groups. This is where the equal protection clause comes into play. Sometimes it can be used for ridiculous end but I guarantee you all the laws mentioned above will be challenged and most likely overturned on that basis.

Jo

 

[airplanemechanic]

It's basically the supremacy clause.

 

[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 ...

They passed 3 laws that are horrible. They removed vaccine choice from parents and they also passed a bill forcing mainecare which is state medicaid to pay for murdering babies.

They will all be over-turned...As will the most recent Alabama law.

On what grounds? States can always make laws more strict that the gov't, they can't make them LESS strict. That's why no state can make it legal to possess weed because it's a federal crime to do so. That would be making a law less strict than feds, and you can't do that. Federal law says its legal to kill babies, state law now says it's not. It couldn't go the other way. Alabama can't legalize anything the feds deem illegal, but they can make ILLEGAL anything they so choose.

States are still allowed to pass laws they deem necessary for their state's residents.

Yes I agree with you 100% on the parliamentary procedures of Federal legislation versus State legislation. The remaining question is whether or not the laws infringe on the rights of any specific groups. This is where the equal protection clause comes into play. Sometimes it can be used for ridiculous end but I guarantee you all the laws mentioned above will be challenged and most likely overturned on that basis.

Jo

I doubt it. Right now 43 states have limitations on abortions. The SCOTUS has already ruled any laws that limit abortion must make an exception for the health of the mother and Alabama's law does.

Its not going anywhere.