• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Maine Senate moves to award electoral votes to popular vote winner

They support a republican president yet the popular vote supports a democrat.
the people pretty much had their voice nullified as to who they support as president.

you should put more thought behind your posts.
have a nice day no further response to you is needed.

I voted for a libertarian President in 2016 and my state's EC votes went to Clinton. Does that mean I lost my right to vote for President in 2016? Because I didn't.
 
Interesting that it's part of the pact of multiple states, but so far this pact would not have worked in 2000 or 2016...



This makes sense!

... But now look at the states involved



With only blue states involved this would help a Republican if R wins popular vote but would NOT help a Democrat if D wins popular vote. I guess the idea is to get some R or flip-flop states on board...

it's a bad idea. it gives Republicans even more of an advantage. no red state is going to sign on to give electoral votes to a Democratic candidate. the way to go is to win a whole ****load of offices in enough states to repeal it via amendment. that will be exceptionally difficult, however.
 
In 2012 if you took 4% off Obama's margin from each state across the board, Romney would have won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote. You could've done that in 2008 too with Obama's popular vote margin. In fact it's been oscillating which party it would favor pretty frequently over the last century, although the only times there's actually been a split it's been in favor of the Republicans.

But 2012 in particular, with the "blue wall", supposedly favoring Democrats in the electoral college really did cause a lot of Republican opposition to the electoral college. It was especially true on the night of the election before all of California and Washington's vote had come it looked like Obama would win without winning the popular vote. This led to some Republicans ardently opposing the EC, with President Trump as an example going on a Twitter tirade about how it shouldn't exist. It's also how the Popular Vote Compact passed some Republican controlled legislatures in states like Arizona and Oklahoma with broad bipartisan support.

Go Zags
 
Conservatives' arguments against this are quite possibly the saddest argument they have out of anything. Case in point...

Yet another states that gives up it sovereignty and the right of their people to cast their votes for who they want as president.
wow. i thought government job was to secure freedom not give it away.

people of the states should sue their government for the violation of their voting rights.

Such a violation of their voting rights to cast the electoral votes in accordance with how the majority of the state votes. :roll:
 
They support a republican president yet the popular vote supports a democrat.
the people pretty much had their voice nullified as to who they support as president.

I'm pretty indifferent to the popular vote/Electoral college arguments overall. I don't think either system is substantially better than the other. But I absolutely hate this argument.

The people of Maine would not be having their voice nullified as to who they support as president. It's just that instead of sending their 4 EVs to whichever candidate, (or 3 to one and 1 to the other since it's Maine), and having the electoral college be decisive, they'd be sending their 747,000ish votes to the popular vote count which would be decisive for the president.

The Compact guarantees that the popular vote is decisive. (Or as much as the current system guarantees the electoral college is decisive since faithless electors could exist in either system). Maine has influence in the popular vote. To act like they are somehow having their voice nullified is, I think, ridiculous. There are better arguments to be made against the compact.
 
I am conflicted on this. The idea of the electoral college was to prevent a tyranny of the majority, as well as to give smaller states a bigger voice in elections.

Smaller states shouldn't have a bigger voice in elections.
 
Democrats can't win the legal way, so they cheat.

Demographics are on their side - America's population is becoming more dependent. Democrats will rule eventually, and we'll all have free stuff, I'd say in 50 years or so. Until then some of us will have to work.

This move by Maine aims to push that 'free stuff' for all of us sooner - maybe only 20 years to a blissful, work free life as "someone else" pays for everything. However, the move has been described as "bypass electoral college" and "Maine backs push to replace Electoral College.."

What Maine is trying to do won't get done without an amendment to the Constitution.
 
What it does is give motivation for the RNC to campaign for votes in states they otherwise ignore, while the DNC has no reason to try to get votes in Red states. The Republican Party would have reason to try to get more votes in California, New York, Illinois etc despite knowing they can't win the state. This is an extra stupid plan almost entirely favoring Republicans.
 
What it does is give motivation for the RNC to campaign for votes in states they otherwise ignore, while the DNC has no reason to try to get votes in Red states. The Republican Party would have reason to try to get more votes in California, New York, Illinois etc despite knowing they can't win the state. This is an extra stupid plan almost entirely favoring Republicans.

It only goes into effect when 270 electoral votes worth of states sign on to it.
 
States have the right to assign their electoral votes how they wish.

And if Candidate B wins the PV and gets Maine's EVs, but a majority of Maine voters voted for Candidate A?
Essentially, they are being told "Your vote doesn't count anymore, too bad!". That's wrong.
 
Don't you know that a bunch of rich white slaveholding elitists in the 18th century could predict with crystal clarity the exact constitutional needs in the 21st century? /s

Blah blah blah
Your race card is useless. Try a less stupid argument.
 
The Democratic Party wants to erase the words "United States of" from our country.
 
The legalities are interesting too. Since it would affect me and my state, anyone in my state and the state of Florida and every other state has reason to sue any other state over the election.

Since it affects Florida exactly the same as California, Florida should equally be able to pass laws on how presidential elections in California are run, since statehood became 100% irrelevant to anything.
 
I can't wait to watch the Leftists lose their **** when a Republican wins the popular vote and these states have no choice but to award their votes to him.

Or, even better, the people are goung to vote heavily for a candidate, but the votes will have to go to the other candidate. Then the ****'s going to hit the fan.
 
And if Candidate B wins the PV and gets Maine's EVs, but a majority of Maine voters voted for Candidate A?
Essentially, they are being told "Your vote doesn't count anymore, too bad!". That's wrong.

No. Essentially they're being told, (by themselves since they elected the people that passed this), "your vote counts toward the popular vote which you have chosen to stand as a better way of electing the president than the current way electoral votes are distributed."

As I said upthread, I think this argument is the absolute worst argument either for or against the NPVIC that people make.
 
Smaller states shouldn't have a bigger voice in elections.

You must be a liberal. Your "**** the flyover states" is very evident.

Keep talking like that. It only serves to keep the Dems lose elections.
 
The legalities are interesting too. Since it would affect me and my state, anyone in my state and the state of Florida and every other state has reason to sue any other state over the election.

Since it affects Florida exactly the same as California, Florida should equally be able to pass laws on how presidential elections in California are run, since statehood became 100% irrelevant to anything.

The states are only deciding how their own electoral votes are distributed. That ability is enshrined in the constitution.
 
The legalities are interesting too. Since it would affect me and my state, anyone in my state and the state of Florida and every other state has reason to sue any other state over the election.

Since it affects Florida exactly the same as California, Florida should equally be able to pass laws on how presidential elections in California are run, since statehood became 100% irrelevant to anything.

A Democrat will lose because of these state laws, they'll be challenged in court and they will be overturned.
 
The states are only deciding how their own electoral votes are distributed. That ability is enshrined in the constitution.

We'll see what the courts have to say when this piece of **** CHEATING get's challenged.
 
And if Candidate B wins the PV and gets Maine's EVs, but a majority of Maine voters voted for Candidate A?
Essentially, they are being told "Your vote doesn't count anymore, too bad!". That's wrong.

That is why any state joining the "blue" PV compact is also "blue".
 
We'll see what the courts have to say when this piece of **** CHEATING get's challenged.

Your neck must hurt; looking up at all those airplanes and all! :lamo
 
We'll see what the courts have to say when this piece of **** CHEATING get's challenged.

I think they'll side with it being constitutional. Article II gives pretty broad power to the states to choose how their electors are determined. "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 Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress"

It certainly doesn't have to be by people voting. At the beginning of our country, many states let the legislature choose the electors.
 
Back
Top Bottom