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

[Hutch Starskey]

Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.

Not a constitutional issue in any way.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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 ...

Democraps are all for mob rule.

All I can say is, be careful, very careful what you are asking for.

Your governor was elected by "mob rule", dope.

WTF are you asking for?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

My goodness....and now you resort to threatening lives.

When ballots are invalid, then bullets refresh the tree of Liberty.

When ballots are invalid, then bullets refresh the tree of Liberty.

Bring it, loser.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Conservative states are free to try their own compacts or to try rebelling in a Confederacy again

Be careful what you wish for.

Be careful what you wish for.

You'd better load some more rounds, loser.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

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

States are not allowed to circumvent the Constitution

You have no functional understanding of the constitution, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Bad move... What if TRUMP WINS the popular vote? You gonna congratulate these mental midgets for their brilliant plan when NY, Cal, DC, and MAINE turn red on election night? It's naked power grabbing..

And I don't like it. But that doesn't matter.. What matters is that states cannot PRESCRIBE voting rules like that to their electors in the Electoral College. That's why you always get a few renegade electors that DO NOT FOLLOW the vote and end up voting for people either NOT on the ballot or who were never NOMINATED to run i in the general election..

You should spend more time understanding how things work and less time wasted defending ideas that are clearly partisan power grabbing... Stupid ideas that could backfire horribly on the conspirator babies....

What if TRUMP WINS the popular vote?

Then maybe it was a good idea?

The door swings both ways, dope.
The only way you're against it is if you believe the Repubs will never get the popular vote.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

The voters of Maine could overwhelming vote for a Democrat, and then have Republican win the popular vote. Their votes would be suppressed in favor of voters outside of their state.

Also:

"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."

There is a direct violation of the Constitution right there!

The voters of Maine could overwhelming vote for a Democrat, and then have Republican win the popular vote. Their votes would be suppressed in favor of voters outside of their state.

It's already that way, dope.

3 million more voters did not support the current president.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

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.

Umm.....
They just saw their votes nullified by unpopulated fly-over states for the second time this century. Wait until you get that shoved down your pie hole. No doubt your crowd will not handle it as gracefully.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Umm....
Maybe so your side can win the popular vote?

If anything. This should make more people want to vote.

 

[Marion Morrison]

What a moron.

States Rights only exist in the context where they can define things not otherwise addresses in the constitution.

The Electoral College is specifically defined.

Sorry Dummy.

Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.

No it isn't. States rights.

The Constitution gives state legislatures the right to choose how presidential electors are chosen.

The National Popular Vote, Explained

Thank you playtime
I can still see a valid argument, where using
the NATIONAL popular vote to determine a STATE'S electoral vote
can still be CHALLENGED as not representing THAT STATE'S population.

I could sooner see using the STATE'S popular vote (NOT national) to
throw all or proportional percentage of THAT STATE's electoral votes to that winner.

But trying to justify a STATE using NATIONAL VOTES FROM OTHER STATES,
that can be argued as violating the State's REPRESENTATION of its own population
to allow "people of other states" to dictate where THEIR state votes go!

That is undeniably true. Whether the feds would have jurisdiction to step in, however, is the question. On the one hand, the Constitution does not seem to prohibit a state from choosing it's electors in any fashion it wishes. BUT. There is precedent for the feds to do just that. Disenfranchising a state's voters is a Very Bad Thing if those voters happen to be minorities, and many of those currently championing the national vote movement would not tolerate some of the inevitable consequences.

Let's consider this scenario. A state throws its electoral votes to the national vote winner, who happens to be white. The voters in the state, however, OVERWHELMINGLY voted for a national vote loser, who happens to be black, in numbers that would normally win the state for him/her. How long do you think it would take for the supporters of this idea to erupt in self-righteous indignation?

By "self-righteous indignation" you do mean riots, correct?

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Bad move... What if TRUMP WINS the popular vote? You gonna congratulate these mental midgets for their brilliant plan when NY, Cal, DC, and MAINE turn red on election night? It's naked power grabbing..

And I don't like it. But that doesn't matter.. What matters is that states cannot PRESCRIBE voting rules like that to their electors in the Electoral College. That's why you always get a few renegade electors that DO NOT FOLLOW the vote and end up voting for people either NOT on the ballot or who were never NOMINATED to run i in the general election..

You should spend more time understanding how things work and less time wasted defending ideas that are clearly partisan power grabbing... Stupid ideas that could backfire horribly on the conspirator babies....

What if TRUMP WINS the popular vote?

Then maybe it was a good idea?

The door swings both ways, dope.
The only way you're against it is if you believe the Repubs will never get the popular vote.

Disenfranchising the voters of your state is NEVER a good idea... Now matter HOW desperate your party machine is to obtain and retain power... I don't CARE about Repubs and Dems. I CARE that fools and criminally insane politicians are trying to unwind the Constitution....

 

[flacaltenn]

Besides that The Dem Tards will sue the Government over their own dumb ass laws when they find out they will be forced to Give The Orange Menace their Electoral Votes anyways

Don't shed yer leaves just yet, they don't have enough states to enact the compact yet.

They are wasting taxpayer money on an unconstitutional hissy fit is what they are doing.. Only way to BIND ELECTORS in that manner is to AMEND the constitution....

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What a moron.

States Rights only exist in the context where they can define things not otherwise addresses in the constitution.

The Electoral College is specifically defined.

Sorry Dummy.

No it isn't. States rights.

The Constitution gives state legislatures the right to choose how presidential electors are chosen.

The National Popular Vote, Explained

Thank you playtime
I can still see a valid argument, where using
the NATIONAL popular vote to determine a STATE'S electoral vote
can still be CHALLENGED as not representing THAT STATE'S population.

I could sooner see using the STATE'S popular vote (NOT national) to
throw all or proportional percentage of THAT STATE's electoral votes to that winner.

But trying to justify a STATE using NATIONAL VOTES FROM OTHER STATES,
that can be argued as violating the State's REPRESENTATION of its own population
to allow "people of other states" to dictate where THEIR state votes go!

That is undeniably true. Whether the feds would have jurisdiction to step in, however, is the question. On the one hand, the Constitution does not seem to prohibit a state from choosing it's electors in any fashion it wishes. BUT. There is precedent for the feds to do just that. Disenfranchising a state's voters is a Very Bad Thing if those voters happen to be minorities, and many of those currently championing the national vote movement would not tolerate some of the inevitable consequences.

Let's consider this scenario. A state throws its electoral votes to the national vote winner, who happens to be white. The voters in the state, however, OVERWHELMINGLY voted for a national vote loser, who happens to be black, in numbers that would normally win the state for him/her. How long do you think it would take for the supporters of this idea to erupt in self-righteous indignation?

By "self-righteous indignation" you do mean riots, correct?

Well duh.....

 

[flacaltenn]

Geez... Just because the DNC can disenfranchise voters with "superdelegates" that are bound by the party elite and have 70,000 times the votes for each one of them compared to a normal citizen -- these leftists think they can do the same horseshit on a national scale...

 

[flacaltenn]

Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.

Not a constitutional issue in any way.

You're funny dude.. It's a naked attempt to overturn the electoral college and the MEANING of it.... That;s how dumb you apparently are....

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

Bad move... What if TRUMP WINS the popular vote? You gonna congratulate these mental midgets for their brilliant plan when NY, Cal, DC, and MAINE turn red on election night? It's naked power grabbing..

And I don't like it. But that doesn't matter.. What matters is that states cannot PRESCRIBE voting rules like that to their electors in the Electoral College. That's why you always get a few renegade electors that DO NOT FOLLOW the vote and end up voting for people either NOT on the ballot or who were never NOMINATED to run i in the general election..

You should spend more time understanding how things work and less time wasted defending ideas that are clearly partisan power grabbing... Stupid ideas that could backfire horribly on the conspirator babies....

What if TRUMP WINS the popular vote?

Then maybe it was a good idea?

The door swings both ways, dope.
The only way you're against it is if you believe the Repubs will never get the popular vote.

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.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Geez... Just because the DNC can disenfranchise voters with "superdelegates" that are bound by the party elite and have 70,000 times the votes for each one of them compared to a normal citizen -- these leftists think they can do the same horseshit on a national scale...

What are you trying but failing to say?

Post the delegate count from the 2016 dem primary and explain, dope.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

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

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

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

From that link:

"Professor Norman R. Williams of Willamette University dismisses the federal law by suggesting that presidential elections could nonetheless be conducted in secret.

“States could comply with that requirement without making their actual vote totals public, such as by releasing the vote totals only to the candidates on the condition that the totals are kept confidential until after the Electoral College meets. Such selective release would allow the losing candidate to pursue a judicial election contest, which itself could be kept closed to the public to ensure the vote total’s confidentiality, but it would frustrate the NPVC by keeping other states from knowing the official vote tally.”[373][Emphasis added]

 

[flacaltenn]

Geez... Just because the DNC can disenfranchise voters with "superdelegates" that are bound by the party elite and have 70,000 times the votes for each one of them compared to a normal citizen -- these leftists think they can do the same horseshit on a national scale...

What are you trying but failing to say?

Post the delegate count fron the 2016 dem primary, dope.

That post made NO sense at all.. The delegate count was overwhelmingly for the winner.. That's how this is supposed to work since about 1779...

Now if any state wants to BIND all it's electors to the NATIONAL VOTE instead of the various methods for apportioning their electors by the WILL OF THE PEOPLE of that state --- they've BYPASSED the intent and purpose of the Electoral College...

You even TRYING to follow along here?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Bad move... What if TRUMP WINS the popular vote? You gonna congratulate these mental midgets for their brilliant plan when NY, Cal, DC, and MAINE turn red on election night? It's naked power grabbing..

And I don't like it. But that doesn't matter.. What matters is that states cannot PRESCRIBE voting rules like that to their electors in the Electoral College. That's why you always get a few renegade electors that DO NOT FOLLOW the vote and end up voting for people either NOT on the ballot or who were never NOMINATED to run i in the general election..

You should spend more time understanding how things work and less time wasted defending ideas that are clearly partisan power grabbing... Stupid ideas that could backfire horribly on the conspirator babies....

What if TRUMP WINS the popular vote?

Then maybe it was a good idea?

The door swings both ways, dope.
The only way you're against it is if you believe the Repubs will never get the popular vote.

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)?