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

[Claudette]

Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.

Yup and the Constitution is very clear on the issue.

Guess Maine wants to disenfranchise their voters.

Morons one and all.

 

[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 ...

Well, that's a clever way to get around a Constitutional amendment.

 

[OldLady]

Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.

Yup and the Constitution is very clear on the issue.

Guess Maine wants to disenfranchise their voters.

Morons one and all.

My guess is, Maine wants the President elected by the majority.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

 

[Claudette]

Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.

Yup and the Constitution is very clear on the issue.

Guess Maine wants to disenfranchise their voters.

Morons one and all.

My guess is, Maine wants the President elected by the majority.

No. Sounds more like they want to disenfranchise their voters.

 

[Kondor3]

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

Just because one CAN do a thing does not mean that one SHOULD do a thing.

----------------

By forcing their Electors to vote "nationally" rather than "locally" (state-level)...

This law risks forcing Electors to vote against the instructions of their "local" constituents...

As an Independent and Centrist, with very little long-term loyalty to either major political party...

I firmly believe that this law provides the mechanism to disenfranchise local voters, and that, therefore, it is wrong...

The Founding Fathers intended us to apportion our Electors according to the local popular vote, not put our finger on the scales...

The sooner this piece-of-$hit law goes before the US Supreme Court, the better.

 

[rightwinger]

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!

That is very true

Republicans could benefit as well
Not just in Maine, but big EV states like California, NY, Illinois
States they could never win but would be awarded their votes

A Republican could win the popular vote by a tiny margin but take the EV with over 500 votes

 

[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.

 

[Lesh]

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

Just because one CAN do a thing does not mean one SHOULD do a thing.

Just because you don't LIKE what states are constitutionally allowed to do ...does not mean they shouldn't do it

 

[OldLady]

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....

I guess everyone is convinced the Democrats will win the popular vote.
Funny how that is. Guess everyone knows that Trump is not very popular.

 

[Moonglow]

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....

I guess everyone is convinced the Democrats will win the popular vote.
Funny how that is. Guess everyone knows that Trump is not very popular.

They think that representatives have our interest in their voting record...

 

[OldLady]

Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.

Yup and the Constitution is very clear on the issue.

Guess Maine wants to disenfranchise their voters.

Morons one and all.

My guess is, Maine wants the President elected by the majority.

No. Sounds more like they want to disenfranchise their voters.

No. Maine has (had) a really screwy system for allotting Electoral votes, anyway. I have never been able to figure it out. 1st District voted for Hillary. That's one EV. 2nd District voted for Trump. One for him. Then two more were awarded to Clinton, and I'll be damned if I can figure out why.
Voting for the winner of the popular vote in the country will be a lot easier to figure out.

 

[Kondor3]

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

Just because one CAN do a thing does not mean one SHOULD do a thing.

Just because you don't LIKE what states are constitutionally allowed to do ...does not mean they shouldn't do it

"Your Honor... the Prosecution rests."

-----------

Try taking the side of local voters rather than political parties or state legislatures, eh?

Are Democrats not the Party of the Common Man?

Why do you strip the Common Man in that State of his vote, if the Nation votes differently?

Shame on you.

Shame on Maine.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

.....Historic stock market,

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.

Yup and the Constitution is very clear on the issue.

Guess Maine wants to disenfranchise their voters.

Morons one and all.

My guess is, Maine wants the President elected by the majority.

No. Sounds more like they want to disenfranchise their voters.

No. Maine has (had) a really screwy system for allotting Electoral votes, anyway. I have never been able to figure it out. 1st District voted for Hillary. That's one EV. 2nd District voted for Trump. One for him. Then two more were awarded to Clinton, and I'll be damned if I can figure out why.
Voting for the winner of the popular vote in the country will be a lot easier to figure out.

Because she won the popular vote for the whole state...not hard to understand at all.

 

[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

 

[JWBooth]

Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.

No it isn't. States rights.

Funny, a lib relying on the states rights position.

 

[OldLady]

Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.

Yup and the Constitution is very clear on the issue.

Guess Maine wants to disenfranchise their voters.

Morons one and all.

My guess is, Maine wants the President elected by the majority.

No. Sounds more like they want to disenfranchise their voters.

No. Maine has (had) a really screwy system for allotting Electoral votes, anyway. I have never been able to figure it out. 1st District voted for Hillary. That's one EV. 2nd District voted for Trump. One for him. Then two more were awarded to Clinton, and I'll be damned if I can figure out why.
Voting for the winner of the popular vote in the country will be a lot easier to figure out.

Because she won the popular vote for the whole state...not hard to understand at all.

Thanks! You know, I just went to wiki and asked, instead of the great, long, explanations I had been looking at in the past, and it said just that.
I appreciate it.

 

[rightwinger]

Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.

No it isn't. States rights.

Funny, a lib relying on the states rights position.

Or conservatives trying to block a states right

 

[JWBooth]

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