Maine Senate moves to award electoral votes to popular vote winner

[Chillfolks]

It's my understanding this os a non binding agreement. If so what's to stop a state from enforcing this deal selectively depending on who or what party wins the popular election?

 

[Obscurity]

Democrats can't win the legal way, so they cheat.

It's up to the states per the constitution how states apply electorates.

I guess you didn't know that.

 

[Chomsky]

[h=1]Maine Senate moves to award electoral votes to popular vote winner


Maine Senate moves to award electoral votes to popular vote winner[/h]AUGUSTA, Maine —Maine's Senate has approved a plan to allocate the state's four electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote, instead of the candidate who wins the Electoral College.


An interesting approach the the real issue.

Been following this for awhile, and I must admit they've been making real & steady progress in this initiative. It's still a killer lift, though.

 

[Chomsky]

Democrats can't win the legal way, so they cheat.

It is legal, that's the whole point.

 

[Chomsky]

actually they do. they cast their votes in a popular vote in that state.
that way all votes are weighted equally.

No they're not. But under this system, they will be.

 

[poweRob]

Cue the inevitable and idiotic "Our founding fathers never intended for city people to choose the next president, for reasons I have no intention of sourcing" argument.

They like the EC, which is supposed to be proportionally dispersed based on population... but they don't like the actual population's dispersement for some reason. Here's the whole conversation...

Idiot: LA and New York will then decide all elections!!!1!1!!!
Rational: The EC is proportionally dispersed
Idiot: So? LA and New York will then decide all elections!!!1!1!!!
Rational: If the EC is proportionally dispersed, then it's supposed to represent highly populated areas with more electors right?
Idiot: So? LA and New York will then decide all elections!!!1!1!!!
Rational: That means you should also be opposed to the fact that New York and California have more EC electors because of their larger populations right?
Idiot: So? LA and New York will then decide all elections!!!1!1!!!​

Rinse and repeat.

 

[ocean515]

This would be massively helpful in depolarizing the Republican party as they would have no choice but to appeal to more moderates and shuck the lunatics or never hold the presidency again.

I'd have to look at this a little closer, but does it mean candidates in the New Democratic Party can ignore even more people?

 

[Chomsky]

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.

If it brings more politico attention to places they otherwise might not go, I'm all for it. This will get the politicos out of the battleground states, forcing them to compete everywhere. I like this aspect of it, very much. It should lead to more moderate policy.

 

[Chomsky]

It only goes into effect when 270 electoral votes worth of states sign on to it.

Yes, but it will require parties competing everywhere, not just the battlegrounds, and even in otherwise hostile states. I like this aspect of it very much!

 

[Chomsky]

why not?

Because the guy in Wyoming is no better than you or me, EMN. Get serious.

 

[Chomsky]

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.

Interesting point.

 

[Taylor]

I'd have to look at this a little closer, but does it mean candidates in the New Democratic Party can ignore even more people?

Absolutely. If this were to pass, why would you ever bother to campaign in Maine? This approach puts pressure on politicians to pander to the largest majorities and ignore minorities.

 

[Cardinal]

They like the EC, which is supposed to be proportionally dispersed based on population... but they don't like the actual population's dispersement for some reason. Here's the whole conversation...

Idiot: LA and New York will then decide all elections!!!1!1!!!
Rational: The EC is proportionally dispersed
Idiot: So? LA and New York will then decide all elections!!!1!1!!!
Rational: If the EC is proportionally dispersed, then it's supposed to represent highly populated areas with more electors right?
Idiot: So? LA and New York will then decide all elections!!!1!1!!!
Rational: That means you should also be opposed to the fact that New York and California have more EC electors because of their larger populations right?
Idiot: So? LA and New York will then decide all elections!!!1!1!!!​

Rinse and repeat.

A hatred of people who live in cities dominates all reasoning in these discussions.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Wrong, and you have no valid source to support that claim. Unless, of course, the "there was concern" statement referred to somebody other than the founding fathers.

Will you next claim that the sun isn't bright, and demand sourced proof? The EC was birthed of the general concern; the FFs were in many cases elitists opposed to true democratic rule.

 

[Chomsky]

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.

No it wouldn't, because your state would only join voluntarily. Otherwise, it doesn't affect you.

 

[Cardinal]

Absolutely. If this were to pass, why would you ever bother to campaign in Maine? This approach puts pressure on politicians to pander to the largest majorities and ignore minorities.

Instead, they pander to the biggest swings states.

 

[Cardinal]

Will you next claim that the sun isn't bright, and demand sourced proof? The EC was birthed of the general concern; the FFs were in many cases elitists opposed to true democratic rule.

From my original post:

"Cue the inevitable and idiotic 'Our founding fathers never intended for city people to choose the next president, for reasons I have no intention of sourcing' argument."

I'm rather prescient, wouldn't you say?

 

[Chomsky]

That is why any state joining the "blue" PV compact is also "blue".

But it was the Blue states talking about and desiring this earlier, under Obama. Niether Blue nor Red matters, because states and legislatures change majority parties over election cycles.

 

[ocean515]

Absolutely. If this were to pass, why would you ever bother to campaign in Maine? This approach puts pressure on politicians to pander to the largest majorities and ignore minorities.

Exactly.

And just the issue our Founding Fathers found unacceptable when going about selecting a Chief Executive who is to represent ALL citizens of the United States, not just the people in the population centers

 

[Chomsky]

And let’s not forget that if the republican wins the popular vote then he wins fair and square by anybody’s standard.

:thumbs:

Yes, it would assure greater legitimacy amongst the body politic.

 

[Chomsky]

Hmm, I think you are right and I was wrong on this.

I was thinking that Blue states open themselves up to giving votes to R (if R wins popular vote) but Red states do not open themselves up to this vote switch. So, it felt like an asymmetric power loss by the blue states. However, if we DO have enough states for 270 electoral votes, which is the only condition when this would get triggered, there must have been sufficient number of states that it should benefit D and R same way if they win popular vote.

/hands Slavister honorary Poli-Sci diploma

:thumbs:

 

[Chomsky]

This is the other argument against it that I absolutely cannot stand. California cast 10.2% of electoral votes in 2016. California cast 10.3% of the popular vote in 2016. The idea that this somehow hugely enlarges the voting power of California is just not accurate. (And all 10.2% of those EVs went to Democrats when only about 6.3% of that 10.3% went to Hillary in the popular vote.)

Maine has next to no voice compared to California the way it currently is set up. They have 4 electoral votes. California has more than 10 times that.

And the idea that this will automatically throw every election to leftist cities is kind of the same bad argument. In 2012, the electoral college favored Democrats. This is despite the fact that those same cities favored leftists roughly the same as in 2016 when the electoral college hurt Democrats. The people thinking that the electoral college will only hurt Democrats forever, (and a lot of these people are Democrats who only want it abolished for political reasons), are almost definitely wrong.

While your points are valid, Ludin's general premise of politicos having more impetus to visit the highest population areas (often urban) does hold though, does it not?

I could see whole low-population states getting under-visited. Of course, they kinda' are now anyway.

 

[Chomsky]

Speaking solely to the bolded, it's possible to have nefarious motives for supporting a policy and hold the stronger position simultaneously.

Super easy example: A Republican wants white people to be allowed to vote just because it helps his candidate. That's a self-serving motive, and yet that Republican also holds an entirely correct and defensible position because nobody should be barred from voting due to their caucasian-ness.

So to apply that to this topic, a Democrat wants a system that rewards the candidate with the most votes just because that helps his candidate. Again, a self serving motive, and yet that person holds a superior position because minority rule is indefensible in a democratic system of government.

What I'm not getting into for the moment is the fact that people in smaller states actually have more voting power than in California.

And the bolded goes in spades in the Senate! :doh

 

[Chomsky]

I like the way Maine awards their electoral votes now. The winner of each congressional district is awarded that CD's electoral vote. The candidate whom received the most votes state wide receives the remaining two. This take the awarding of electoral votes down to the lowest common denominator.

Since the electoral votes are based on the number of representatives plus 2 for the senators, Maine's present system makes more sense than the winner take all states. The voters in each congressional district have a say in whom their own congressional district award its electoral vote. For me, this is what it is all about.

:thumbs:

 

[Chomsky]

Absolutely. If this were to pass, why would you ever bother to campaign in Maine? This approach puts pressure on politicians to pander to the largest majorities and ignore minorities.

Not ignore "minorities", but they would ignore sparingly populated areas. Which essentially is what occurs today, but even worse if you're not in a battleground state. With this system, there would be no battleground states.