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

CNN ^ | May 16, 2019 | Caroline Kelly

[Innovative]

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.

[july4thfreedomfoundation]

The only portion of Maine’s population that is “too stupid to make decisions” is that portion that votes for democrats.

[Political Junkie Too]

if you believe in the giving the states as much power as possible, then you’ve got to accept that this is constitutional.

I would say that if a state chose to do this unilaterally without conditions, then yes, it would be constitutional.

To me, it hits a wall when it binds the state to the actions of other states. It is no longer "a state" doing what "it" wants.

Making it contingent on a compact of states totaling 270 EV no longer makes it a single state doing what it wants.

Here is a question: what happens if Puerto Rico decides to become a state? They would get 3 Electoral College votes, making the majority now 541/2=271 votes. The compact would fall short by one vote. Does that make the compact invalid, or does that still bind the states to deliver a minority vote?

-PJ

[chuckee]

Oh, I see now where “group” comes into play in a case where a candidate does not win the popular vote but wins the 270 electoral under our current system. All these states trying to subvert the electoral college system are Deep Blue except maybe Maine which currently can split its electoral vote by district and Colorado which is purple and leans toward blue. So the net effect is that they are trying to combine all their electoral votes in a unanimous package so should Colorado and Maine’ popular vote goes to a Republican who does not win the popular vote nationally they must nevertheless award their electoral votes to the Democrat if their electoral votes in combination with the other deep blue states in the group and other states whose electoral votes the dem won would create a 270 majority.

[HamiltonJay]

I fully expect Trump to win the Popular Vote in 2020...and add several more states... then watching states like CO and ME who passed this stupidity have to add their EC votes to his tally will just be icing on the cake.

[atc23]

Funny is when Trump loses the electoral but wins the popular vote and is installed for another 4 years. Doh!

[dirtymac]

Can’t happen. The left is too good at stuffing the ballot box. At least the Democrats doesn’t need to worry about Maine’s voters because they don’t need to vote.
Stupid

[dfwgator]

One of the consequences of this will be now Republicans in California will have motivation to vote, even though their State is a lost cause.

How many potential Trump voters in California stayed home, just because they figured it would be a waste of time?

[Leaning Right]

> Assume Maine’s or Colorado, or any of the other states in this movement vote for Candidate A, but Candidate B gets the popular vote, the decision of the state’s voters is ignored. <

But those votes weren’t ignored. They were all counted, and then added to some total. Those votes did have an impact.

I actually feel bad arguing that this Popular Vote thing is constitutional. Because I think it’s a terrible idea, and a real threat to the Republic.

[Theoria]

Well said, at a min approved by Congress.

[DungeonMaster]

so let voter fraud in any state decide?

That's obviously the plan and it seems like the real constitutional crisis.

[Gene Eric]

Denying the vote of its residents.

I wish nothing good on the Democrat Thug Party

[antidemoncrat]

It’s called tyranny of the government (see Russia, China,Iran, etc etc etc).

[Leaning Right]

> To me, it hits a wall when it binds the state to the actions of other states. <

I agree. Please see my post #35. As to Puerto Rico - or anyone else - becoming a state, I don’t think that would matter. The Compact just says 270 votes, period.

And the more I think of it, the more I think USCG SimTech is right. It’s the “compact” thing that makes this idea unconstitutional. But my opinion doesn’t count. It will be up to the Supreme Court.

[chuckee]

Oh, ok, so I see that if these deep blue states combining into this compact can lasso some purple states during the times that the purple state may have a Dem majority state legislature into the compact and ultimately can get states representing a total of 270 electoral votes into the group, the net effect is that purple states that voted for the Republican who did not win the popular vote but won the electoral vote with their purple state electoral have disenfranchised themselves and must now award their electoral votes to the Dem despite the fact that the state popular vote was for the Republican

[jospehm20]

Yep

[Political Junkie Too]

Instead, just say: Starting with the next election, all of our electoral votes will go to the national popular vote winner.

I wonder why they’re not saying that now. Perhaps they are not as serious about the idea as they want you to believe.

I've been saying that since this whole nonsense began.

I believe the reason to be that it would immediately make the state's voters feel disenfranchised when their vote goes the opposite way, and there will be calls to revoke the law. That would ripple to all the other states to either back out or refuse to join, thereby killing the idea. They need an all-or-nothing compact to immerse the nation all at once to minimize the chance of cold feet or buyer's remorse.

That said, my suggestion to kill this off is for a state to move to a method that does not involve "popular votes," thereby denying the compact a "national popular vote."

My suggestion is for some states to enact what is effectively electoral colleges inside their states. One simple approach would be to declare that the party that wins control of the lower chamber of the legislature (usually the assembly) determines the state's electoral college makeup.

Voting would be at the state assembly district level. Voters would be voting for their local state assembly representatives. It wouldn't matter if the party wins the chamber by 1 vote or 1 million votes. For example, Texas has 150 Representative districts; Republicans hold 83 seats and Democrats hold 67 seats. Therefore, Texas' Electoral College votes would go to the Republican. Or, the chamber may decide to split the vote if the chamber is more evenly divided.

Now, the media can try to infer a Texas popular vote by adding up all the Texas House of Representative votes by party, but they would lose a court challenge because they cannot say that a vote for a local assemblyman automatically means the person intended to vote for the Presidential candidate of the same party, even though the winning party chooses the President. People may argue that they were more concerned with voting for local issues like property taxes, school policy, and road repair.

So, if there is no direct vote for a President in one or more states, how does the national popular vote compact handle that when there is no longer a full national popular vote?

-PJ

[elpadre]

can a government tell a citizen how to vote?? Are State electors for the electoral college citizens, or are they instruments of a state’s authority???

[chuckee]

Seems to me the Republicans better get on the stick and challenge the constitutionality of this interstate voting compact to subvert the electoral college BEFORE the 2020 election because the Republicans will have a tough time with the political optics of Dems challenging the Republican winner as illegitimate because he did not win the popular vote nor the electoral vote of the interstate voting compact which unconstitutionally created a electoral vote majority. Dems will go with that narrative, the media will support it and most of the voting public will not understand it and go with their narratives.

[NorthMountain]

Can they do this? The US constitution can be crumpled up like this?

State legislatures can direct their electors to vote any way the State legislatures want.

[Old Retired Army Guy]

Trump winning the Popular vote is problematical as long as California Votes count. In 2016, if you eliminated the California vote, Trump would have won the Popular vote of all the other 49 States. He lost CA by over 3 Million. It wouldn’t break my hears to see CA secede from the Union and become a separate Country. Pretty soon, their National Language would be Spanish.