• 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

3leftsdoo said:
Given a choice between cleaning up the crime scene that is the party, or coming up with new and ever-more >clever< ways to cheat the outcome, this kind of plan is no surprise after 2016. :(
Click to expand...

That is exactly what this is all about. A way to guarantee that their party's candidate wins.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
If Republicans can't win the popular vote that's a problem with the Republican platform.
Click to expand...

I would imagine fewer than 5% of all Americans ever read a party's platform. Our elections are basically beauty contests. The candidate with the most charisma usually wins unless you have two dullards going against each other. Obama had charisma, McCain and Romney didn't. Obama won. G.W. Bush didn't have that much charisma, but he was down homey against two statues, Gore and Kerry. Bush did have a bit more than those two and won.

Bill Clinton had charisma out the ears and easily defeated G.H.W. Bush and Dole who had none. Reagan had Charisma, Carter and Mondale, not much, Reagan won. Neither Dukakis and G.H.W. Bush had charisma, two dullards, but Bush had the advantage of being VP and standing out as Reagan's shadow. Neither Carter nor Ford had charisma, but Jimmy like G.W. was more down homey, Jimmy won.
 
Perotista said:
I would imagine fewer than 5% of all Americans ever read a party's platform. Our elections are basically beauty contests. The candidate with the most charisma usually wins unless you have two dullards going against each other. Obama had charisma, McCain and Romney didn't. Obama won. G.W. Bush didn't have that much charisma, but he was down homey against two statues, Gore and Kerry. Bush did have a bit more than those two and won.

Bill Clinton had charisma out the ears and easily defeated G.H.W. Bush and Dole who had none. Reagan had Charisma, Carter and Mondale, not much, Reagan won. Neither Dukakis and G.H.W. Bush had charisma, two dullards, but Bush had the advantage of being VP and standing out as Reagan's shadow. Neither Carter nor Ford had charisma, but Jimmy like G.W. was more down homey, Jimmy won.
Click to expand...

If Republicans can't win the popular vote then they shouldn't be in office.
 
Lie, cheat, and steal. That's the liberal way to get through life. Always.

So a Maine resident's vote only counts if it falls in line with the national popular vote?

Then why vote?

LOL, liberal logic is just stunning.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
If Republicans can't win the popular vote then they shouldn't be in office.
Click to expand...

So if California can set up rules and laws to stuff their ballot boxes beyond capacity, then Missouri and Kansas don't matter.

The electoral college was created exactly to prevent this stupidity.

This is a Republic, not a Democracy. One day, liberals will actually put down their bongs and smart phones and realize this.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
If Republicans can't win the popular vote then they shouldn't be in office.
Click to expand...

If I had my way, no one would become president if they couldn't receive a majority of the vote. 50% plus one vote. We need no minority presidents. Any candidate who has more Americans vote against him than for him should be sitting in the oval office. At least in the electoral college it requires a majority vote. 50% plus one vote to win.

If you require a majority in the popular vote, I could go along with that. But not having more Americans vote against you than for you. The majority should have their way, that I agree with. If no candidates receive a majority, 50% plus one vote, then have another election without any of the previous candidates since a majority of Americans have stated they didn't want them to become president.
 
Perotista said:
I would imagine fewer than 5% of all Americans ever read a party's platform. Our elections are basically beauty contests. The candidate with the most charisma usually wins unless you have two dullards going against each other. Obama had charisma, McCain and Romney didn't. Obama won. G.W. Bush didn't have that much charisma, but he was down homey against two statues, Gore and Kerry. Bush did have a bit more than those two and won.

Bill Clinton had charisma out the ears and easily defeated G.H.W. Bush and Dole who had none. Reagan had Charisma, Carter and Mondale, not much, Reagan won. Neither Dukakis and G.H.W. Bush had charisma, two dullards, but Bush had the advantage of being VP and standing out as Reagan's shadow. Neither Carter nor Ford had charisma, but Jimmy like G.W. was more down homey, Jimmy won.
Click to expand...

Some great points, but Clinton won his first term due to 3rd party presence.

Hence the Democrats subsequently cheating 3rd parties out of national debate.

If you're sensing a pattern cheating-wise, you're sensing correctly.
 
Slavister said:
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...
Click to expand...

Perhaps, just perhaps, this has nothing to do with (D) or (R) and is just them trying to do the right thing and elect the person who the majority of voters vote for. Not everything is about red and blue, right and left.
 
Erod said:
Lie, cheat, and steal. That's the liberal way to get through life. Always.

So a Maine resident's vote only counts if it falls in line with the national popular vote?

Then why vote?

LOL, liberal logic is just stunning.
Click to expand...

A bit broad, but the bolded part?

Agree.

This compact will face MASSIVE legal push back if triggered, and will land in the lap of the Supremes.
 
Perotista said:
If I had my way, no one would become president if they couldn't receive a majority of the vote. 50% plus one vote. We need no minority presidents. Any candidate who has more Americans vote against him than for him should be sitting in the oval office. At least in the electoral college it requires a majority vote. 50% plus one vote to win.

If you require a majority in the popular vote, I could go along with that. But not having more Americans vote against you than for you. The majority should have their way, that I agree with. If no candidates receive a majority, 50% plus one vote, then have another election without any of the previous candidates since a majority of Americans have stated they didn't want them to become president.
Click to expand...

As someone who believes in coalition governance, I'm not really behind the majority concept, but appreciate much of what you're saying.
 
3leftsdoo said:
A more interesting poll would be conducted among those who were NOT zoned out/asleep/high as a kite/absent during civics/history classes. :)
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear that you have such a low opinion of your fellow Americans.
 
Kreton said:
Perhaps, just perhaps, this has nothing to do with (D) or (R) and is just them trying to do the right thing and elect the person who the majority of voters vote for. Not everything is about red and blue, right and left.
Click to expand...

By ignoring the will of the the majority of voters in their OWN state, they're triggering what will be a tsunami of law suits.

It's cheating pure and simple.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
If Republicans can't win the popular vote that's a problem with the Republican platform.
Click to expand...

I don't know that that's true -- partly because we haven't had a presidential election based on the popular vote. Were these elections based on a popular vote, the outcome could be very different.

It's like saying a team should win a football game because they had more time of possession. While it's generally true that there is a correlation between time of possession and wins, there are many cases where that's not true. Coaches aren't running the team with the end goal of having the ball more, because that's not what determines who wins the game.
 
Media_Truth said:
Sorry to hear that you have such a low opinion of your fellow Americans.
Click to expand...

Well, hitting that bong behind the bleachers IS important, but if you're going to comment on the EC, a teeny bit of understanding would be nice. :cool:
 
3leftsdoo said:
By ignoring the will of the the majority of voters in their OWN state, they're triggering what will be a tsunami of law suits.

It's cheating pure and simple.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. You may not like it. You don't have to. A national election should be determined by a national vote. There is no logical argument that can be made that it shouldn't. The electoral college is outdated, ineffective, and no longer needed. It is gerrymandering and is held onto by those who benefit from exploiting it.
 
ludin said:
It doesn't matter if you don't like it or not. in the 2016 election CA cast more votes than 22 other states.
When you add NY to that it completely drowns out all of those votes and those peoples votes simply wouldn't have mattered.



Actually they do. the EC's that the people vote for go to the candidate that they voted for. Under this system their EC votes go to whoever CA and NY vote for.



No i don't think it will hurt democrats forever.
I think the electoral college forces candidates to appeal to a wide variety of views across the nation.
a popular vote is nothing more than pandering to the mindless masses.

basically throwing bread to the crowd to be popular.
Leftists are pissed that they have to espouse plans that everyone likes.

the EC gets in their way of mindless mass voting. then again that was the job of the EC to begin with.
Click to expand...

It's not California and New York that really have their voting power changed though. I made a chart reflecting the change in voting power from shifting systems. Small states definitely experience some decline, and bigger states certainly grow generally, but it's not California or New York that are anywhere near the top. Claiming that this system just greatly shifts power to California and New York is just mathematically false.

Change in Voting Power chart.jpg

California certainly does have a good deal of popular votes. (Though 22 states worth is incorrect. California's popular votes only add up to the 18 smallest states.) But they just aren't the state that's really empowered by this change. I mean their electoral votes add up to the smallest 15 states anyway.
 
dcsports said:
I don't know that that's true -- partly because we haven't had a presidential election based on the popular vote. Were these elections based on a popular vote, the outcome could be very different.

It's like saying a team should win a football game because they had more time of possession. While it's generally true that there is a correlation between time of possession and wins, there are many cases where that's not true. Coaches aren't running the team with the end goal of having the ball more, because that's not what determines who wins the game.
Click to expand...

It is true. When was the last time a Republican got into the white house (not re-elected) by popular vote?

(hint check around the mid 80's)
 
ludin said:
It doesn't matter if you don't like it or not. in the 2016 election CA cast more votes than 22 other states.
When you add NY to that it completely drowns out all of those votes and those peoples votes simply wouldn't have mattered.



Actually they do. the EC's that the people vote for go to the candidate that they voted for. Under this system their EC votes go to whoever CA and NY vote for.



No i don't think it will hurt democrats forever.
I think the electoral college forces candidates to appeal to a wide variety of views across the nation.
a popular vote is nothing more than pandering to the mindless masses.

basically throwing bread to the crowd to be popular.
Leftists are pissed that they have to espouse plans that everyone likes.

the EC gets in their way of mindless mass voting. then again that was the job of the EC to begin with.
Click to expand...

In the end - a vote in Maine should not be worth more than a vote in Cali. 1 person, 1 vote, vote should count as 1.
 
Perotista said:
All this is is knee jerk political reaction to losing an election.
Click to expand...

Don't think that's true. The vast majority of states that joined this Compact did so before 2016.
 
Perotista said:
Why any state would want to cede their voice in the election to someone else is beyond me.
Click to expand...

See. It's this argument I don't understand at all. They aren't ceding their voice in the election. They're changing the way their voice works. The popular vote is the decisive point in the election (+/- faithless electors as in our current system of pledged delegates). And their voice certainly counts toward that. It's the people of these states choosing that they would rather their voice go towards that decisive process.

I have no idea how you can argue that they're just ceding their voice in the election.
 
Kreton said:
It is true. When was the last time a Republican got into the white house (not re-elected) by popular vote?

(hint check around the mid 80's)
Click to expand...

lol -- by those qualifications, there's also only one Democrat that recieved the majority in the popular vote (Obama).

But to answer your question, no president has ever been elected to the white house by popular vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom