Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Maine Senate passes bill giving state's electoral votes to national popular vote winner
CNN ^ | May 16, 2019 | Caroline Kelly

Posted on 05/16/2019 6:15:12 AM PDT by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Maine
KEYWORDS: election; electoralcollege; electoralvotes; popularvote; presidentialelection
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-110 next last
To: Leaning Right

They are waiting for the total Electoral College votes of the states that enter the compact to be 270 or more.


81 posted on 05/16/2019 8:07:08 AM PDT by Roccus (When you talk to a politician...ANY politician...always say, "Remember Ceausescu")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: chuckee
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

That's right.

Consider the 2000 election. President Bush won with 271 EV to Gore's 266 (one wacky elector abstained, a DC elector who would have voted for Gore protested DC voting status). So, let's call it 271-267, where one state swings it. Colorado voted for Bush 883,754, Gore 738,227, Nader 91,434. Even if the Nader voters went to Gore, Bush would still have won Colorado.

Colorado recently passed the NPV compact. If it had been in place in 2000, Colorado would have voted for Gore despite the majority of the state voting for Bush. Gore would have won Colorado's electoral college votes and the Presidency, despite Colorado giving it to Bush.

The NPV Compact initiative was started in 2001 as a direct result of the outcome of the 2000 election.

-PJ

82 posted on 05/16/2019 8:15:42 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (The 1st Amendment gives the People the right to a free press, not CNN the right to the 1st question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: albie; All

Pacts and coalitions of states are unconstitutional.

Imagine election night 2020 on TV if this were to take effect:
“We project Biden will easily win the states of Maine and Massachusetts.”
A few hours later: “Trump will apparently win the popular vote so we change the colors of these states from blue to red as they are part of the National Vote Compact.”


83 posted on 05/16/2019 8:16:02 AM PDT by raccoonradio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: albie

AL Gore; “the US Constitution is a living document”. Thus, it means what the democrats say it means.


84 posted on 05/16/2019 8:18:33 AM PDT by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wizdum

That’s exactly what is coming. They’re idiots and their heads are going to go nuclear when their electoral votes go to Trump.

It’s such a great example of what happens when you think with emotion and don’t think logically and long term.

These are State’s that won’t vote for Trump anyway...it’s of no relevance of being positive for them but will be highly relevant if Trump gets the popular vote.

It’s just dumb. PDJT could be the first POTUS to be reelected with 100% of the electoral votes!


85 posted on 05/16/2019 8:22:43 AM PDT by fuzzylogic (welfare state = sharing of poor moral choices among everybody)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: albie

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

I would think any law that forces electors to vote against their will is unconstitutional.


86 posted on 05/16/2019 8:38:42 AM PDT by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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

Hillary Clinton defeated Donald Trump by 4,269,978 votes, which is more than the combined total votes cast in Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Kansas (all Trump states).

In New York, Clinton's excess vote count was 1,736,590. Illinois excess Clinton votes were 944,714. Massachusetts was 907,303.

In California, in just Los Angeles alone Clinton's excess vote count was 838,575.

-PJ

87 posted on 05/16/2019 8:39:37 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (The 1st Amendment gives the People the right to a free press, not CNN the right to the 1st question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

Reversing the 2016 election would be poetic. Trump wins the 2020 majority vote and loses the electoral college by 5 votes. However, given the Democrat states’ decision to award their electoral votes to the majority vote winner, Trump wins in a landslide. Play that song for the imbeciles.


88 posted on 05/16/2019 8:41:01 AM PDT by Louis Foxwell (The denial of the authority of God is the central plank of the Progressive movement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Welcome to the new democrat controlled C.C.C.P. only the east and west coasts votes count everyone grab ankles.


89 posted on 05/16/2019 8:48:04 AM PDT by Vaduz (women and children to be impacIQ of chimpsted the most.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScottfromNJ
I would think any law that forces electors to vote against their will is unconstitutional.

That's not how it works.

There isn't a single body of people called "electors." Each party forms their own slate of electors made up of state party members. Usually, these members are people who have been active in their state party, who attend conventions, who organize local events, etc.

Each slate is vetted by the campaign team and approved by the national campaign. When a state's election result is determined, it's the winning party's slate that is chosen to go to the Electoral College in December.

Therefore, the electors are already partisan party voters who will not be forced to vote against their will. They would, however, be voting against the will of the people of their state.

-PJ

90 posted on 05/16/2019 8:53:17 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (The 1st Amendment gives the People the right to a free press, not CNN the right to the 1st question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right

“The Constitution gives the states great latitude in deciding how they will assign their electoral votes.”

As long as basic constitutional principles are followed. The primary constitutional issue here is forcing a slate of electors to vote against their will and as a result, disconnecting those electors from the voters of that state and therefore disenfranchising the state’s voters.


91 posted on 05/16/2019 9:03:47 AM PDT by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

With the possibility of lawsuits over fraud between States an election result could drag on for months, maybe more.
States won’t be able to cast their electoral votes until suits against other States are settled.
Gonna be popcorn time.


92 posted on 05/16/2019 9:07:36 AM PDT by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

I’ve got a better idea. Apportion electoral votes to counties. If we’d had that in 2016, Trump would have beaten Clinton by about five to one. Landslide!


93 posted on 05/16/2019 9:09:48 AM PDT by Buttons12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

“Therefore, the electors are already partisan party voters who will not be forced to vote against their will. They would, however, be voting against the will of the people of their state.”

If the slate of electors are forced by legislation to vote for the national popular vote winner instead of their party’s candidate, then I would think they’re being forced to vote against their will.


94 posted on 05/16/2019 9:23:58 AM PDT by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: ScottfromNJ
They're not being forced. The partisan slate is what is being chosen.

There is a Republican slate and a Democrat slate. If the state goes to the Republicans, then the Republican slate is sent to the Electoral College. If the state goes to the Democrats, then the Democrat slate is sent. The Republican slate will enthusiastically vote for the Republican candidate, and the Democrat slate will enthusiastically vote for the Democrat candidate.

It's not one single non-partisan slate that gets sent with orders on how to vote.

The candidates' names are just proxies on the ballot; the people are really voting for Electors. It's just a convenience to keep from having 110 electors on the ballot with instructions to vote for 55 (if you're in California).

-PJ

95 posted on 05/16/2019 9:39:42 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (The 1st Amendment gives the People the right to a free press, not CNN the right to the 1st question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

I just received this in an email from a friend. I have not researched the content, but it sure sounds good!

“The founders of this country were much smarter than and more
responsible than our current Congressional representatives.

Last week the newly convened Democratic controlled House of
Representatives introduced a bill to eliminate the electoral
college. It seems that, since they couldn’t win the last
presidential election under the rules that have existed for almost
250 years, they want to change the rules. Below is an excellent
explanation on why this is a very bad idea.

Subject: 319 Square Miles

In their infinite wisdom, the United States’ Founders created the
Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented.
Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the
whole of the nation?

The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on
the Internet. It should finally put an end to the argument as to
why the Electoral College makes sense.

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them..
Clinton won 16.

Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn,
Manhattan, Richmond (or Staten Island) & Queens) Clinton
received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton
only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)

Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for
Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million
square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest
that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles
should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA,
etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our
country!

And...it’s been verified and documented that those
aforementioned 319 square miles are where the majority of our
nation’s problems foment.”


96 posted on 05/16/2019 9:51:22 AM PDT by VMI70
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VMI70
👍🏼👍🏼
97 posted on 05/16/2019 9:57:19 AM PDT by Jane Long (Praise God, from whom ALL blessings flow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Reily

Yea...I was researching that. You’re correct. Still not sure it would survive a constitutional challenge. I believe the intent of the electoral college was to apportion equal voting weight to the less populated areas of the country...otherwise, large population centers would ALWAYS elect our president.

We will see.


98 posted on 05/16/2019 10:14:52 AM PDT by servantboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Wizdum

If DJT does not win Wisconsin in 2020 (popular vote or not), he loses ...


99 posted on 05/16/2019 10:16:46 AM PDT by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice

DJT must win the mid-west and Penn, for that to happen. Right now he loses Wisconsin (against Joe) and if that holds and the other states in the mid-west and Penn flip, he loses. He must win Wisconsin.


100 posted on 05/16/2019 10:31:41 AM PDT by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-110 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson