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

[BlindBoo]

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.

A state cannot give its electoral votes to the National popular vote winner. Unconstitutional. Ludicrous that anyone would give it serious attention.

Where in the Constitution can I find the section that set the conditions or limits how the states chose their electors?

 

[OldLady]

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.

A state cannot give its electoral votes to the National popular vote winner. Unconstitutional. Ludicrous that anyone would give it serious attention.

Yeah, you stick with that. LOL

It is expected to pass the Maine House but we don't know how the new governor stands on it.

 

[hadit]

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?

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

And we're back to my main point, which is that this is short term thinking. It is a dead certainty that the same people advocating for this will suddenly discover voter disenfranchisement and suppression should their state's electoral votes go to the other guy because he won the popular vote. And God help us should that state have a large population of those historically underrepresented. Think of what would happen should a state with a large gay population, for one example, see their state's electoral votes go to a straight candidate when their pick, an openly gay candidate, would have won with their electoral votes, but lost because their state went with the popular vote.

Better to change things the proper way, by amending the Constitution.

 

[hadit]

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

Of course. It would be perfectly legal, therefore, for states to announce that they will no longer be holding a popular vote at all, but are going to appoint electors with no concern for what the voters want. Kind of like assigning the state's electoral votes based on how other states voted.

How long do you think this really will stand when a governor or senator overwhelmingly carries his home state but loses it because he didn't carry the national vote? Or, consider Algore's ill fated attempt when he didn't even win his home state. How do you think the voters would have reacted had their negative vote on him been overruled because other states voted for him?

This is just a bad idea.

It would make more sense to just do away with the Electoral College all together.

And we can, via a Constitutional amendment.

 

[hadit]

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.

A state cannot give its electoral votes to the National popular vote winner. Unconstitutional. Ludicrous that anyone would give it serious attention.

Where in the Constitution can I find the section that set the conditions or limits how the states chose their electors?

Their isn't any. States could revert back to the original intent and simply appoint electors without holding a popular vote at all.

 

[BlindBoo]

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

Of course. It would be perfectly legal, therefore, for states to announce that they will no longer be holding a popular vote at all, but are going to appoint electors with no concern for what the voters want. Kind of like assigning the state's electoral votes based on how other states voted.

How long do you think this really will stand when a governor or senator overwhelmingly carries his home state but loses it because he didn't carry the national vote? Or, consider Algore's ill fated attempt when he didn't even win his home state. How do you think the voters would have reacted had their negative vote on him been overruled because other states voted for him?

This is just a bad idea.

It would make more sense to just do away with the Electoral College all together.

I agree. We went from a Federal collective of 13 states to the world's predominant super power with a massive increase in federal power.

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?

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

And we're back to my main point, which is that this is short term thinking. It is a dead certainty that the same people advocating for this will suddenly discover voter disenfranchisement and suppression should their state's electoral votes go to the other guy because he won the popular vote. And God help us should that state have a large population of those historically underrepresented. Think of what would happen should a state with a large gay population, for one example, see their state's electoral votes go to a straight candidate when their pick, an openly gay candidate, would have won with their electoral votes, but lost because their state went with the popular vote.

Better to change things the proper way, by amending the Constitution.

But think of the bragging rights if a candidate wins all the Red states and enough in the Blues to win the whole shebang? Massive landslide in the EC. Trumpublicans' would love that!

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The issue is not whether a state may direct its electors and apportion votes any way it wants. Can a state legislature conspire with the legislatures of any other state to manipulate it's electors to affect the election. No. This is unconstitutional.

 

[Dick Foster]

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.

 

[BlindBoo]

The issue is not whether a state may direct its electors and apportion votes any way it wants. Can a state legislature conspire with the legislatures of any other state to manipulate it's electors to affect the election. No. This is unconstitutional.

How can it be unconstitutional when the constitution gives the right to choose it's elector completely to the states?

It can't be a criminal conspiracy for several states to agree to do something that is legally granted to them by the constitution, choosing their electors.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

It will never arrive.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Democrats are convinced that all they need to win is the popular vote in California and New York.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Then change the Constition!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Not true! Why do you lie?

Percentages have nothing to do with it!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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?

You quoted it dumbass!

Stop playing stupid! You do it too well!

 

[rightwinger]

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?

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.

Show where in the Constitution it is prohibited.

Conservatives used to be such strict Constitutionalists
Take the document literally. If it is not spelled out, it does not apply

 

[gnicari]

Libtards are going to freak when Trump wins the popular vote in 2020.

 

[hadit]

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

Of course. It would be perfectly legal, therefore, for states to announce that they will no longer be holding a popular vote at all, but are going to appoint electors with no concern for what the voters want. Kind of like assigning the state's electoral votes based on how other states voted.

How long do you think this really will stand when a governor or senator overwhelmingly carries his home state but loses it because he didn't carry the national vote? Or, consider Algore's ill fated attempt when he didn't even win his home state. How do you think the voters would have reacted had their negative vote on him been overruled because other states voted for him?

This is just a bad idea.

It would make more sense to just do away with the Electoral College all together.

I agree. We went from a Federal collective of 13 states to the world's predominant super power with a massive increase in federal power.

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

And we're back to my main point, which is that this is short term thinking. It is a dead certainty that the same people advocating for this will suddenly discover voter disenfranchisement and suppression should their state's electoral votes go to the other guy because he won the popular vote. And God help us should that state have a large population of those historically underrepresented. Think of what would happen should a state with a large gay population, for one example, see their state's electoral votes go to a straight candidate when their pick, an openly gay candidate, would have won with their electoral votes, but lost because their state went with the popular vote.

Better to change things the proper way, by amending the Constitution.

But think of the bragging rights if a candidate wins all the Red states and enough in the Blues to win the whole shebang? Massive landslide in the EC. Trumpublicans' would love that!

Oh, the wailing from the left would be sweet to hear, for sure. But it's still better to do things the right way.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

You lose....from your Constitutional reference

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof May direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Représentatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

States pass their own laws on how they will assign EVs

 

[BS Filter]

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.

A state cannot give its electoral votes to the National popular vote winner. Unconstitutional. Ludicrous that anyone would give it serious attention.

Where in the Constitution can I find the section that set the conditions or limits how the states chose their electors?

Posted. Google it.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

What matters is that states cannot PRESCRIBE voting rules like that to their electors in the Electoral College.

The legality of faithless electors is really an aside. The EC currently works by each candidate submitting a list of electors (who can be expected to vote for said candidate). The election determines whose list becomes the electors for the state. 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.