Maine Senate moves to award electoral votes to popular vote winner

[Greenbeard]

We'll see what the courts have to say when this piece of **** CHEATING get's challenged.

The manner of appointing electors is left entirely to the state legislature under the Constitution.

 

[Anagram]

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

It's passed several red legislatures before and passed many other legislatures with bipartisan support. It won't in the near future, since in 2016 the electoral college helped out the Republicans. But I wouldn't be shocked if it did again once who the electoral college helps oscillates back as it always has before.

 

[Slavister]

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.

I'm not sure I follow your logic. If the pact had existed in 2016 then 270 electoral votes would have automatically gone to the popular vote winner, which was Clinton.

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.

 

[Cardinal]

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.

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

 

[Cardinal]

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.

You seem resigned to the conclusion that a majority of the country doesn’t want a republican in charge.

 

[ludin]

Sounds like everyone on the losing side in a winner-take-all state has a case against the EC.

Then they should get their legislature to change to a proportional vote then.
not give their votes over to another state to control.

 

[ludin]

Conservatives' arguments against this are quite possibly the saddest argument they have out of anything. Case in point...
Such a violation of their voting rights to cast the electoral votes in accordance with how the majority of the state votes. :roll:

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.

 

[danarhea]

Blah blah blah
Your race card is useless. Try a less stupid argument.

Actually, that was not a race card. The electoral college was instituted as a compromise with slave holding states. However that doesn't mean that the reason back then for creating it is the same as the reason today for keeping it, but that was the reason it was created in the first place.

 

[ludin]

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 people of main support a republican/democrat president yet the opposite wins the popular vote. their EC's now much vote against the will of the people in that state.
no their 747k votes is nothing that is if everyone in the state votes.

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.

no they have next to no voice.
NY and CA outnumber them by a wide margin.

the best argument again the system is simply this. pandering to major cities will win the election.
you basically would need to only visit 2 or 3 states and pander to the population there in order to win the election.

this gives a lopsided power grab to 1 political group as most cities people tend to be leftist.
while people whose views are not reflected by government are ignored.

the election system was designed to stop this very thing from happening.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

why should my subject of who i want as president be turned over to NY and CA?

Because more people live there and your vote shouldn't count more than any other American.

it was simply decided by their
government to turn their voice for president over to someone else.

It's literally the opposite of this.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

the people of main support a republican/democrat president yet the opposite wins the popular vote.

LMAO what does this even mean?

 

[Anagram]

the people of main support a republican/democrat president yet the opposite wins the popular vote. their EC's now much vote against the will of the people in that state.
no their 747k votes is nothing that is if everyone in the state votes.



no they have next to no voice.
NY and CA outnumber them by a wide margin.

the best argument again the system is simply this. pandering to major cities will win the election.
you basically would need to only visit 2 or 3 states and pander to the population there in order to win the election.

this gives a lopsided power grab to 1 political group as most cities people tend to be leftist.
while people whose views are not reflected by government are ignored.

the election system was designed to stop this very thing from happening.

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.

 

[Cardinal]

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.

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.

 

[Anagram]

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 an indefensible in a democratic system of government.

My statement was never intended to imply that anything you said here was untrue and I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[prometeus]

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

Why do you post really really moronic tripe?
How many of the past elected Dem President s did not win both the popular and the EC votes?

 

[prometeus]

And the court battles would commence a second later.

On what premise? Again you demonstrate even the most basic understanding of the topic. States are free to allocate EC votes any way they please.

 

[Perotista]

[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.

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.

 

[The Mark]

Personally I'd prefer that every state implemented some form of ranked-choice voting.

But...good?

 

[Anagram]

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.

I don't like that method.

For one thing, I don't want to give state legislators further incentive to only redistrict based on how it well help their party. For another an even smaller percentage of congressional districts are typically competitive than states. I worry about turnout.

 

[Anagram]

Personally I'd prefer that every state implemented some form of ranked-choice voting.

That's the dream. Maine, coincidentally, is currently the only state with ranked-choice voting.

 

[Perotista]

I don't like that method.

For one thing, I don't want to give state legislators further incentive to only redistrict based on how it well help their party. For another an even smaller percentage of congressional districts are typically competitive than states. I worry about turnout.

I think the CD method makes the presidential race more localized. Even with gerrymandering, your say in whom gets the electoral vote from the CD you reside in is much more than state or nationwide. For that one electoral vote your vote means much more than for the total of 538 nationwide. Your one in 700,000 in deciding your electoral vote instead of one in 320 million or whatever it is. Your vote carries more weight.

Turnout is always the key. One reason Trump won is the Democratic base didn't turnout for Hillary as a percentage of their base. A higher percentage of the republican base turned out. The Democrats had a 6 point advantage in party affiliation in November of 2016 over the Republicans. That advantage shrunk to just 3 points when it came to actual turnout, those who actually voted. Add Trump winning the independent vote, he's in the white house.

Had the Democratic base turnout, maintained their initial six point advantage, Hillary would have won.

 

[Anagram]

I think the CD method makes the presidential race more localized. Even with gerrymandering, your say in whom gets the electoral vote from the CD you reside in is much more than state or nationwide. For that one electoral vote your vote means much more than for the total of 538 nationwide. Your one in 700,000 in deciding your electoral vote instead of one in 320 million or whatever it is. Your vote carries more weight.

Turnout is always the key. One reason Trump won is the Democratic base didn't turnout for Hillary as a percentage of their base. A higher percentage of the republican base turned out. The Democrats had a 6 point advantage in party affiliation in November of 2016 over the Republicans. That advantage shrunk to just 3 points when it came to actual turnout, those who actually voted. Add Trump winning the independent vote, he's in the white house.

Had the Democratic base turnout, maintained their initial six point advantage, Hillary would have won.

One in 700,000 to decide 1/538th of the total vote. I'm not sure that actually makes your vote matter any more towards the actual decision being made for president.

 

[Perotista]

One in 700,000 to decide 1/538th of the total vote. I'm not sure that actually makes your vote matter any more towards the actual decision being made for president.

It makes me feel better. one out of 320 million, I get better odds in winning the lottery. one out of 700,000 is more like Fantasy 5. Lot better odds. That aside, I really don't like the nationwide popular vote. We're a nation of the several states, not huge nation alone. Giving each state a say or each congressional district a say makes more sense to me than one huge direct democracy vote as if congressional districts and state never existed.

Now I would support a hybrid type popular vote based on a majority vote, not a plurality. In fact I might even push it. 3 steps.

1. if a candidate receives 50% plus one vote in the popular vote, that candidate is declared the winner. That is a majority of the people. I don't want a minority president. If no candidate receives 50% plus one vote, a majority, go to step 2.

2. the electoral college. Again a candidate who receives 50% plus one electoral vote, 270 today. That candidate is declared the winner. Again it would require a majority. If no candidate received 50% plus one vote, go to step 3.

3. the house decides who will be president as is stated in the Constitution today.

 

[3leftsdoo]

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.

While our election process has always been an utter sham, there was concern about heavily populated urban areas dominating the political stage to the detriment of less populated rural areas, yes.

This is basic history; to mischaracterize the concern and refer to it as idiocy, or in need of sourcing, is like pre-emptively attacking the idea that someone will claim Washington was president.

 

[Cardinal]

While our election process has always been an utter sham, there was concern about heavily populated urban areas dominating the political stage to the detriment of less populated rural areas, yes.

This is basic history; to mischaracterize the concern and refer to it as idiocy, or in need of sourcing, is like pre-emptively attacking the idea that someone will claim Washington was president.

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.