• 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

danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thats not quite right. "Tyranny of the majority" in my view, is a wrong characterization.

It was to give smaller states more power in the overall vote ( which is not the same as "preventing the tyranny of the majority" which assumes that a majority equals tyranny, well, it doesn't. But, what a majority does do is assure the will of the people). But, it's gone too far, given that it's original purpose has been gutted.

the original purpose of the EC was to put the nomination choice in the hands of knowledgeable ( as opposed to ignorant and uneducated ) people.

Why the Electoral College

The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power.
Click to expand...

But, that purpose has been gutted, and the founding father's fear, that a tyrant who could manipulate public opinion and come to power, has come true.

Therefore, given that the EC no longer operates according to founding father's design, it should be bypassed in favor of the popular vote.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
And let’s not forget that if the republican wins the popular vote then he wins fair and square by anybody’s standard.
Click to expand...


IF.


But, given today's demographics, I doubt it. I doubt that a republican will ever again win the popular vote, unless....

He or she is a moderate, sane, and decent.
 
ludin said:
nope it is a valid argument? why should my subject of who i want as president be turned over to NY and CA?
Show me where the people of the state voted to do this. to me they didn't vote on it. it was simply decided by their
government to turn their voice for president over to someone else.
Click to expand...

States should not be voters. People should be voters. A majority of the people should decide. If that is the case, the "CA, NY" etc, is a specious argument. In the 18th centurey, ignorance and lack of education was feared in the electorate by the founding fathers. But, today, just about everyone is educated, and thus the fear of the founding fathers' is moot, today ( overall, not saying there are not ignorant people out there, but it's not the big problem that it once was ). That is why we should go with the popular vote.
 
ocean515 said:
Impeaching Judges?

Judge Brett Kavanaugh should be impeached for lying during his confirmation hearings.

One thing to hang on to.

Imagine the collective insanity of a period of time that brought about Prohibition. A Constitutional Amendment?

But after that movement/wave passed by, rational thought prevailed and a return to trust and sanity returned.

The US has weathered many challenges, and I have ever reason to have faith it will weather this current challenge from radical globalist forces who hope for it's collapse.
Click to expand...

the problem comes when government takes away the rights of people.
 
OscarLevant said:
States should not be voters. People should be voters. A majority of the people should decide. If that is the case, the "CA, NY" etc, is a specious argument. In the 18th centurey, ignorance and lack of education was feared in the electorate by the founding fathers. But, today, just about everyone is educated, and thus the fear of the founding fathers' is moot, today ( overall, not saying there are not ignorant people out there, but it's not the big problem that it once was ). That is why we should go with the popular vote.
Click to expand...

yet another person that missed civics class.
people are voters.

no people are not educated that is obvious in this thread alone as people are constantly posting incorrect information on how our election system works.
no it is the very reason we should stay far away from the popular vote.
 
Roadvirus said:
Democrats can't win the legal way, so they cheat.
Click to expand...

They've always cheated. They cheated while establishing the Constitution. It was Democrat predecessors that wanted blacks to count as 3/5th of a person for more votes in the House. It was Democrats who defended slavery during the Civil War. Their party was clearly based on slavery. It was Democrats that started the KKK after the war.
 
Perotista said:
I never liked giving all of one states electoral vote to a plurality or minority winner. My compromise on that would require the winner take all states to have to receive a majority of the vote to gain all that states electoral votes, 50% plus one vote. There were I think 15 states, give or take one or two that all of one states electoral votes were awarded to a minority or plurality winner. I would have in that case, those states do like Maine and Nebraska. No candidate receives a majority, go to the congressional district method. The winner via a plurality, minority of voters receives the last two electoral votes for gaining the most votes in that state.
Click to expand...

I am not following why not just do the proportional method I described. If there are 6 electors, 50%-50% votes get you to 3 electors for each candidate. So would 51%-49%. Just round it to the closest split to best represent the wish of the people.

If we wanted to avoid rounding altogther, another system that would work just fine is skip the electors all together (the first reason of being a buffer between voters and President selection did not / does not seem to work anyway). Simply multiply all votes from each state by corresponding weight factor when adding them up. E.g. if Maine has a factor of 2.7 over other states, and 450,000 voted for A and 550,000 voted for B, multiply 2.7 by those two numbers and add to similarly-computed numbers from rest of the states for each candidate. No need for EC convention or anything.

Perotista said:
I'm big on a candidate having to receive a majority of the votes, not just a plurality. The plurality winner still have more voters vote against him than for him and in my book, that make him a loser. The majority of the people didn't want him.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you lost me here. "The plurality winner still have more voters vote against him"?
 
Verax said:
It simply bypasses the constitution, sorry if what is possible under the law offends you.
Click to expand...

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449

"Strained constructions... loosen all the bands of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to George Ticknor, 1817. FE 10:81

"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450
Click to expand...
Your attitude is offensive, and one day it'll come back to bite you.
 
tres borrachos said:
Huh? If a citizen of Maine casts a vote, and the votes were based on pure numbers (no EC), how would that person's vote not be counted? That is completely illogical. Every vote would count towards the total tally of votes.
Click to expand...

I don't think you get it.

If 80 percent of the people in Maine voted for candidate A, and candidate B won the national popular vote, Maine would ignore the will of their own voters and send all their electoral votes to candidate B.

That's what this is about.

And that would never pass constitutional scrutiny. But it sure sounds like elections are headed for certain illegitimacy. I mean, does anyone actually trust the California election results to be accurate and lawful?
 
OscarLevant said:
States should not be voters. People should be voters. A majority of the people should decide. If that is the case, the "CA, NY" etc, is a specious argument. In the 18th centurey, ignorance and lack of education was feared in the electorate by the founding fathers. But, today, just about everyone is educated, and thus the fear of the founding fathers' is moot, today ( overall, not saying there are not ignorant people out there, but it's not the big problem that it once was ). That is why we should go with the popular vote.
Click to expand...

Oh good gawd.

This is a Republic. Not a Democracy. I'd suggest you stop lecturing until you understand this.

Trump won 34 states. Hillary only won 16. That tells you all you need to know about the so-called popular vote.

But I'll play. If you're really interested in "fair", it should be based on land ownership. One farmer who feeds thousands of people with his work should have a more powerful vote than an apartment with 12 people on welfare in the projects. That's truly fair.

The electoral college ensures all aspects of an electorate are considered in a vote. Not just the rich. Not just the common folk. Not just the big cities, or the rural areas. Not just the unions or Wall Street or Hollywood or the Church.

You need to first "localize" your vote through state elections to get a true measure of the needs of a country as diverse and massive as the United State. New York City is nothing like Omaha or Phoenix or Spokane. A true popular vote would mute 90 percent of the country forever.
 
Erod said:
Oh good gawd.

This is a Republic. Not a Democracy. I'd suggest you stop lecturing until you understand this.

Trump won 34 states. Hillary only won 16. That tells you all you need to know about the so-called popular vote.

But I'll play. If you're really interested in "fair", it should be based on land ownership. One farmer who feeds thousands of people with his work should have a more powerful vote than an apartment with 12 people on welfare in the projects. That's truly fair.

The electoral college ensures all aspects of an electorate are considered in a vote. Not just the rich. Not just the common folk. Not just the big cities, or the rural areas. Not just the unions or Wall Street or Hollywood or the Church.

You need to first "localize" your vote through state elections to get a true measure of the needs of a country as diverse and massive as the United State. New York City is nothing like Omaha or Phoenix or Spokane. A true popular vote would mute 90 percent of the country forever.
Click to expand...

Popular vote delegitimizes Trump's win in 2016. That's all you have to know.
 
Verax said:
No. It would ensure everyone has 1 vote rather than the 1.05 Republicans think they are entitled to. That Republicans cannot win elections is not my problem, fix your platform.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, you damn sure don't want to put abortion up to a national vote. Funny how that works.

So you're saying, Hillary won 16 state popular votes, but she should be president. Do I have that right? Winning just 32 percent of the states should be good enough?
 
cabse5 said:
Popular vote delegitimizes Trump's win in 2016. That's all you have to know.
Click to expand...

He won 34 states. She won 16. That's all you have to know.

Oh, and we have an electoral college.

Game, set, and match.
 
Slavister said:
I am not following why not just do the proportional method I described. If there are 6 electors, 50%-50% votes get you to 3 electors for each candidate. So would 51%-49%. Just round it to the closest split to best represent the wish of the people.

If we wanted to avoid rounding altogther, another system that would work just fine is skip the electors all together (the first reason of being a buffer between voters and President selection did not / does not seem to work anyway). Simply multiply all votes from each state by corresponding weight factor when adding them up. E.g. if Maine has a factor of 2.7 over other states, and 450,000 voted for A and 550,000 voted for B, multiply 2.7 by those two numbers and add to similarly-computed numbers from rest of the states for each candidate. No need for EC convention or anything.



Sorry, you lost me here. "The plurality winner still have more voters vote against him"?
Click to expand...

Yep, the plurality winner does have more votes against him. Using 2016, 54% of Americans voted against Trump, 52% against Clinton. More probably the votes against both should have been more since Gallup showed 25% of all Americans disliked both major Party candidates and didn't want neither one to become the next president. That included 54% of all independents. Only the party faithful liked those two candidates. A whole lot of voting for the candidate you least wanted to lose, not to win, but least wanted to lose. Yet 6% of all Americans voted against both Trump and Clinton to include 12% of all independents.

One in Four Americans Dislike Both Presidential Candidates
 
SLC said:
No slavery was bad but the EC and the Constitution had a hand in ending it. It may have taken till the emancipation proclamation to make an end to slavery but it got done under the Constitution. IIRC Lincoln was elected with the smallest plurality of votes in history.
Click to expand...

Your side keeps pushing "original intent," which did not forbid slavery.

You know if you dislike the Constitution perhaps you should move to another country.
Click to expand...

It's your side that wants to go back to the so-called "original intent" of a country that was founded on legalized slavery and very few rights for women, LGBTQs, Natives, etc., so I don't know what you are blathering about.
 
ocean515 said:
Bypasses the Constitution? Really?

Exactly what legal activity, especially on this issue, is allowed to "bypass" the Constitution?
Click to expand...

There are other laws besides the constitution ya know.
 
American said:
Your attitude is offensive, and one day it'll come back to bite you.
Click to expand...

Republicans are impossible to work with so this is what you get.
 
Erod said:
Meanwhile, you damn sure don't want to put abortion up to a national vote. Funny how that works.

So you're saying, Hillary won 16 state popular votes, but she should be president. Do I have that right? Winning just 32 percent of the states should be good enough?
Click to expand...

Yes. It should be one person 1 vote, popular election. How many states you win should be irrelevant.
 
Verax said:
Yes. It should be one person 1 vote, popular election. How many states you win should be irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's that clear necessarily.

That depends on whether you consider USA to be a collection of States, each with their own laws and as very independent governing entities that want to be represented more equally in Federal government, or whether you think we are too far from that original concept that started the "United States".

One of the two reasons for non-equal votes was to make sure States with lesser populations would still be somewhat important for DC.

And yes, we still have Senate based on 2-people-from-each-state. However, giving somewhat bigger power to smaller states in choice of President has been part of this country for a while now as well.

I can see it both ways.

I suppose there are other options too:
- forget having States as separate entities and have all states with same federal laws - no more State-wide laws, no more state-specific taxes, etc
- redraw the whole country to have new number of states and their boundaries so that each state has similar number of people despite completely different amount of land. Periodically adjust state boundaries if population moves too much between states (?)
 
Tangmo said:
I'm not arguing CV's here. Nader is a loser too btw who might be the most boring guy in the universe which is neither here nor there. The facts of post WW II USA is that every third party candidate of any prominence has been a nutcase crackpot, from Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Ross Perot to Ralph Nader and beyond. John Anderson in 1980 was a nothing nobody whose sole purpose was successful, and that was to siphon liberal voters away from Jimmy Carter so Reagan could win states such as Massachusetts cause a squeaker win is a win.

That's debatable even if your post is intended not to be so. It's in fact hard to find a post among your dozens of 'em that isn't a declaratory and summary pronouncement ex cathedra and suggestive of being some kind of papal bullshot. Scattershot.
Click to expand...

Proving my case for me. :)

No sense in taking on a foolish argument; better just to declare the reality of the error/s. :)
 
Last edited:
Perotista said:
I see an impasse here. What the compact is doing is taking the say or voice away from the people in their state awarding that voice to the national popular vote winner. My state becomes irrelevant. We ceased being a union of the several states with each state in that union having a voice to one huge vast direct democracy.
Click to expand...

/Thread
 
ocean515 said:
I wish I could say I disagree with some or all of what you have written. I don't. It's 100% demonstrably true.

The zenith of the Globalist Progressive objective was supposed to have been reached when their chosen figurehead was placed in office on January 20, 2016. That didn't happen, and their plan has been thwarted, for now.

The level of violence and hatred they have promoted in response is a direct indicator of what they perceive the stakes to be. Trillions of dollars, and global control.

Censorship, propaganda, control of media, compliance, fealty or face destruction and personal assault. All are facts that can't be ignored, or disputed.
Click to expand...

Illiberals REALLY seem to dislike the Constitution...
 
OscarLevant said:
Congratulations, you win the Lie Of The Century award !


How do repubs cheat?

1. Voter registration purging: interstate Crosscheck (introduced by Kris Kobach, partnered with 29 red states, removing duped names across states, but middle names and SSN were ignored, resulting over a million wrongfully deleted names, noting that the program was biased against blacks, who share far greater common names than do
other groups. 1.1 million names were purged, and in the swing states, the purged count exceeded the
vote count by some ten fold ).

2. Voter caging ( if you don't send what looks like junk mail back --- junk mail by design-- a questionaire asking you if you still live there, you name is removed. Many people get junk mail and just toss it, and the mailed was designed to look like junk mail)

3. Voter ID ( biased against the poor ) requirements

4. Restricting voting access In 22 States, a Wave of New Voting Restrictions Threatens to Shift Outcomes in Tight Races

****ty little acts by repubs, such as Kansas town’s only polling place moved outside city; lawsuit opposed change, but judge says it’s too late | FOX 4 Kansas City WDAF-TV | News, Weather, Sports

5. New machines given to white neighborhoods while old machines ( more error prone )
left in poor neighborhoods

6. Gerrymandering ( to an extreme far greater than dems ever did ).

7. Not counting provisional ballots that should have been counted especially in red states.

8. Repubs sending out voting notices intentionally giving out the wrong district address of poll location


and this list was just off the top of my head, I'm sure if I research it, I'll find even more ways repubs cheat.

The truth is, there are more on the left than on the right, and this is how they win, by cheating.


You lie, and you lie BIG.
Click to expand...

Never mind about MASSIVE Democrat criminality in voter purges, gerrymandering, voter suppression, cheating the nomination and just generally being corrupt corporate lickspittles.
 
Verax said:
Yes. It should be one person 1 vote, popular election. How many states you win should be irrelevant.
Click to expand...

That's not what a Republic is.

State's rights, buddy. The forefathers saw through you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom