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

[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

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.

Well I hope you're right. I'm a huge pro-lifer
But I'm careful what I say because I'm not a woman.

Where I feel the Alabama law is in peril
Is where it directly contravenes Roe--V--Wade. The scotus cannot let that law stand the way it is without creating permanent and irreversible damage to an already settled case. UNLESS... This is a well planned attempt to directly attack that precedent.
It will of necessity be either severely mitigated or even struck down because it cannot exist simultaneously with that precedent.

Don't get me wrong.... If this is the seed of the tree that hangs Roe.....I'm all for it!
But.....I doubt it.

Jo

 

[rightwinger]

Even with the Electoral College, Republicans are going to have a hard time winning the Presidency.

Without it, they don’t have a prayer

 

[airplanemechanic]

No it does not contravene Roe V Wade. It's just another state with a limitation on abortion. All RVW did was say women had a right to access to abortion. It's up to each state to decide WHEN.

 

[rightwinger]

No it does not contravene Roe V Wade. It's just another state with a limitation on abortion. All RVW did was say women had a right to access to abortion. It's up to each state to decide WHEN.

Right now, it isn’t

 

[airplanemechanic]

No it does not contravene Roe V Wade. It's just another state with a limitation on abortion. All RVW did was say women had a right to access to abortion. It's up to each state to decide WHEN.

Right now, it isn’t

Yes it is, 43 states have already limited when a woman can have an abortion. This is nothing new.

 

[rightwinger]

No it does not contravene Roe V Wade. It's just another state with a limitation on abortion. All RVW did was say women had a right to access to abortion. It's up to each state to decide WHEN.

Right now, it isn’t

Yes it is, 43 states have already limited when a woman can have an abortion. This is nothing new.

They are trying
They will fail

 

[airplanemechanic]

They have not failed at all. Their laws have been in effect for decades.

The only reason the Alabama law is making the news is because of how much it limits abortions, not BECAUSE it limits abortions.

 

[rightwinger]

They have not failed at all. Their laws have been in effect for decades.

The only reason the Alabama law is making the news is because of how much it limits abortions, not BECAUSE it limits abortions.

No

Roe v Wade has been in effect

 

[Moonglow]

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

They will once they have been attached to Hawaii..

 

[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

They will once they have been attached to Hawaii..

oh yah,,,i forgot that both nations speak Chinese

 

[Moonglow]

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

They will once they have been attached to Hawaii..

oh yah,,,i forgot that both nations speak Chinese

Yeah and they look like Chinese..

 

[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

They will once they have been attached to Hawaii..

oh yah,,,i forgot that both nations speak Chinese

Yeah and they look like Chinese..

i wonder what percent of Guam people also speak Austrian

 

[flacaltenn]

The legality of faithless electors is really an aside

The hell it is... Electors are sometimes chosen by the VOTERS at election time (like in TN). Otherwise, they are apportioned AFTER the ELECTION based on the VOTES CAST in that state -- USING "faithful electors" that proportionately support the candidates that were on the ballot..

Faithless electors are just frauds appointed by the state that usually have their own spaced-out agenda.. They vote for TallTree GrassSniffer or the Green Party candidate that didn't even make the ballot in that state or some Socialist Party person who wasn't even on the ballot...

This proposal in Maine is no different, except that Maine will use the nationwide popular vote results to determine whose list becomes the state's electors. For the record, I don't endorse this method at all. But it's horseshit to claim that it's voter suppression, and it's horseshit to claim it's unconstitutional.

I don't NEED the refresher on elections.. I write white papers for the Libertarian Party on ballot access issues.

The whole PURPOSE of electors is to REPRESENT THE VOTERS OF THAT STATE... NOT -- the nation.. And because of BINDING the electors to the NATIONAL VOTE -- and NOT the state results -- it's a shameless naked end-around POWER GRAB to nullify the INTENT of the Electoral College... That's not "unfaithful electors" -- it's HOG-TIED electors...

Therefore it's not only stupid because of the BACK-FIRING potential of the intent to power grab, but it WILL BE found unconstitutional, probably BEFORE it evens hits the Sup Ct...

 

[flacaltenn]

If that's what the Dem party NEEDS to have to turn our REPRESENTATIVE Democracy into a "majority rules" "fuck everyone else" one party system -- they will need to go thru the amendment process to the Constitution and PROPERLY DISPOSE OF the Electoral College...

 

[LeeOnLido]

figures,,,its a bunch of states that allow pretty much anyone to vote,,no ID required

 

[Hiryuu]

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 told my friends the crap that would happen when the Progressives lost their minds if Trump got elected President would be hilarious.
Only worthless dipshits try to change the rules of the game because they lost.

 

[Slyhunter]

Would these states really go through with it if Trump won the popular vote?

 

[Lesh]

Only worthless dipshits try to change the rules of the game because they lost.

Tell it to McConnell

 

[Hiryuu]

Would these states really go through with it if Trump won the popular vote?

Progressives are getting to the point that the only way they win is if they can leverage the opinions outside of their immediate area.

It's the only way Cities like New York can survive if they keep talking crazy crap like the New Green Deal.
New York is going to be up the creek without a paddle when their residents figure out there's not enough space in the city to plant gardens and grow the food they need, or enough room to put all the solar panels or windmills they would need to power their energy needs.

Progressive states with huge metropolitan cities need to go with the popular vote because they're going to have make landowners in Montana, that might not want to, stick a bunch of windmills in the North 40 and screw up the view.

Marxism 101

 

[Hiryuu]

Only worthless dipshits try to change the rules of the game because they lost.

Tell it to McConnell

You tell him, I don't have his number, and he's not my Senator.

Edit:
On second thought, if we do Congress according to popularity, I think they rank right below Camden, NJ Police Department.
Congress isn't too popular.