Maine votes out electoral college

[Ralph]

Once again, everyone, especially those suffering from TDS (Trump derangement syndrome) need to read Justice Paul Stevens' precedent establishing opinion concerning STATES attempting to change the rules for any state that attempts to regulate a federal election via adding or taking away Federal Requirements. Terms Limits Inc., v. Thornton.


"In short......the framers (of the constitution) recognized, electing representatives to the national legislature was a new right, ARISING FROM THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF. The 10th amendment provides no basis for concluding that states possess the reserved power to add qualifications to those that are fixed in the constitution...……...the state power to set qualifications for membership to congress must not derive from state authority but rather from the delegated powers of national sovereignty. In the absence of any constitutional delegation to the states of power to add qualifications to those enumerated in the Constitution......SUCH A POWER DOES NOT EXIST."

I say.....GO FOR IT. Its a slam dunk. Just when was the Electoral College rescinded and excluded from the US Constitution via Constitutional Amendment? I must have missed that one.

 

[Flash]

Nothing can be added or taken away by any STATE in consideration of any federal election. If it does not exist in the Constitution no state can add extra requirements for any federal office, such as placing term limits and barring certain people from Ballot ACCESS.....or declaring that STATE TAX RETURNS are required......nor can they ignore anything in the Constitution without going through the proper procedure of ADMENDING the constitution....which requires a 75% ratification process from all the states combined.

If we were going to implement direct popular election I am assuming it would involve a constitutional amendment. I was asking what provisions his amendment would include to determine the winner.

I'm not sure what you mean by "all the states combined." It requires ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures (which may be what you are saying).

 

[Flash]

Once again, everyone, especially those suffering from TDS (Trump derangement syndrome) need to read Justice Paul Stevens' precedent establishing opinion concerning STATES attempting to change the rules for any state that attempts to regulate a federal election via adding or taking away Federal Requirements. Terms Limits Inc., v. Thornton.


"In short......the framers (of the constitution) recognized, electing representatives to the national legislature was a new right, ARISING FROM THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF. The 10th amendment provides no basis for concluding that states possess the reserved power to add qualifications to those that are fixed in the constitution...……...the state power to set qualifications for membership to congress must not derive from state authority but rather from the delegated powers of national sovereignty. In the absence of any constitutional delegation to the states of power to add qualifications to those enumerated in the Constitution......SUCH A POWER DOES NOT EXIST.

I don't think the popular election pact (if that i what you are referring to) adds or takes away anything from the Constitution. It is just using the state's power to determine how their electoral votes will be distributed.

 

[Ralph]

I don't think the popular election pact (if that i what you are referring to) adds or takes away anything from the Constitution. It is just using the state's power to determine how their electoral votes will be distributed.

They must be distributed via a vote count. The states do possess the right to be ALL or nothing or they can be like the existing law in MAINE can divide their votes depending upon the actual number of votes cast for each candidate. Right now there are 48 states that are all or nothing with only 2 that divide their votes via the number of ballots cast per section. That begs to ask the question if this about MAINE which already uses the split method.... any attempt to completely do away with the EC will be struck down in the court system. All Maine can legally do is the same as the other 48 states....go to ALL OR NOTHING.....or keep the status quo. That's was the point made by Justice Stevens...….no state has the right to legislate regulatory laws concerning any federal election simply to target certain candidates keeping them from ballot access because this is a national sovereignty issue and concern not a state concern.

 

[Flash]

The Constitution does not need to be changed, National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would work.

Agreed. But I seriously doubt it will go into effect. If there is enough support for the pact there would be enough for an amendment. Polls have shown for many years that Americans favor direct election and oppose the electoral college, but simply favoring something is not enough to accomplish anything. The voters have to have strong feelings about it and be willing to work and vote based on that issue. Congress gets little communication regarding changing the electoral college.

 

[cawacko]

True, lesser known candidates will not have the same chance to develop name recognition; especially because there are so many of them.

I think the two parties have established Iowa and NH as the first states to keep the others from jumping ahead.

I can’t claim to have thought this all the way through but with a state like California there’s zero chance candidates can get around and meet the same number of voters the way they do in Iowa and N.H. We’re just too big.

 

[Phantasmal]

Agreed. But I seriously doubt it will go into effect. If there is enough support for the pact there would be enough for an amendment. Polls have shown for many years that Americans favor direct election and oppose the electoral college, but simply favoring something is not enough to accomplish anything. The voters have to have strong feelings about it and be willing to work and vote based on that issue. Congress gets little communication regarding changing the electoral college.

Change takes time they already have 70% of the needed vote. I think there will be a change, after all, look how long it took women to get the vote, but we did.

 

[Phantasmal]

Flash, thank you for the pleasant exchange, you are very knowledgeable.

 

[Ralph]

Change takes time they already have 70% of the needed vote. I think there will be a change, after all, look how long it took women to get the vote, but we did.

Indeed and that RIGHT came about by Constitutional Amendment, not from any state authority for any Federal Election. Hell the republicans recognized the right of women to vote at the state level as early as 1869 in Wyoming. It was the democrats at the federal level that stopped women from voting until an amendment was finally passed. Read a little history. Women had the right to vote at one time between the years 1776 - 1807 until the democrats in NJ. rescinded and restricted voting rights to white males only. Then we had the right to vote in the state of Ky. in 1838 that allowed widowed property owners with children the right to vote....then Ks. in 1861 (But this right existed only at the state level) Democrats stopped all these examples of women's and minority rights at any federal election. Until the 1920 constitutional amendment made it a national right.

 

[Flash]

They must be distributed via a vote count. The states do possess the right to be ALL or nothing or they can be like the existing law in MAINE can divide their votes depending upon the actual number of votes cast for each candidate. Right now there are 48 states that are all or nothing with only 2 that divides their votes via the number of ballots cast per section. That begs to ask the question if this about MAINE which already uses the split method.... any attempt to completely do away with the EC will be struck down in the court system. All Maine can legally do is the same as the other 48 states....go to ALL OR NOTHING.

Where does it say electors must be distributed via vote count? The Constitution make no reference about votes. Popular vote is not conceived in the Constitution. They are distributed according to votes by state law or state constitution. The pact does not do away with the electoral college. States agree to give their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. A majority of electoral votes is still required to win the presidency.

ME and NE do not distribute votes based on the actual vote count. The popular vote winner of each congressional district wins one elector for each district. The state-wide vote winner gets those two electoral votes. So the results are not really proportional to total state votes, but it comes closer than winner take all.

 

[cawacko]

the thing which is different is that domestic enemy terrorists are planted and rooted in the damned gov. in high places; great wickedness. it is epic and it is good. confounding and ever increasing confusion is upon the damned like a neverending bomb cyclone. without a purge; the republic is dead by disease: free radicals. if the purge does not occur prior the 2020 elections; the elections are illegitimate. the damned have stated their intent. they are the damned. so i am keyboard challenged. salad will blow your retentive bowels out. it is good. eat your damned greens.

 

[Cypress]

They drew straws and it was not open to all citizens.

Universal suffrage is an entirely separate issue. I am fully aware that women, non-citizens, and slaves could not vote in Athens.

What was being discussed was the fact that casting a direct vote for a president to represent you is a form of representative democracy.

All male citizens of Athens had a right to sit in the Ekklesia and vote directly for legislation, laws, to vote on war, and to direct policy. That is a direct democracy.

Therefore, the claim being made that the right to vote for a president is a direct democracy was a false assertion. Voting directly for president would be no different than voting for a governor or a senator, all of which are civic rights in a representative democracy.

 

[Flash]

I can’t claim to have thought this all the way through but with a state like California there’s zero chance candidates can get around and meet the same number of voters the way they do in Iowa and N.H. We’re just too big.

And they have already started doing that in Iowa and NH. Front loading certainly benefits those with name recognition (as can be seen by Biden's lead in the polls).

 

[Ralph]

Where does it say electors must be distributed via vote count? The Constitution make no reference about votes. Popular vote is not conceived in the Constitution. They are distributed according to votes by state law or state constitution. The pact does not do away with the electoral college. States agree to give their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. A majority of electoral votes is still required to win the presidency.

ME and NE do not distribute votes based on the actual vote count. The popular vote winner of each congressional district wins one elector for each district. The state-wide vote winner gets those two electoral votes. So the results are not really proportional to total state votes, but it comes closer than winner take all.

Common sense. Just how are you going determine who gets the EC votes if not by the popular vote as it exists in every state? What are you just going to make a law that says, DEMOCRATS win every year we are a 1 party state? Really? There are 2 choices. All or nothing or equal distribution as per the votes cast. Anything else would result in CHANGING the federal election rules void of any constitutional authority. Read Article 1, Section 1, Clause 3...….the words are not to difficult to understand, "the Electors shall meet in their respective states …….." We do suppose that the state of Maine is still in the union and wishes to have a voice in all presidential elections? No state can do away with the requirement of the EC unless there is a supermajority ratification (75%) via ALL THE STATES.

You see....this nation was established as a REPUBLIC, not a democracy ruled by MOBS. The EC college stops state tyranny from happening. If THE EC was to be rescinded you would have but 3 or 4 states forcing their ideology upon all the other less populated states. Every wonder whey there are but 2 senators representing each state (regardless of population), and congress is represented via population? We live in a representative CONSTITUTIONAL republic not a democracy.

 

[Flash]

Universal suffrage is an entirely separate issue. I am fully aware that women, non-citizens, and slaves could not vote in Athens.

What was being discussed was the fact that casting a direct vote for a president to represent you is a form of representative democracy.

All male citizens of Athens had a right to sit in the Ekklesia and vote directly for legislation, laws, to vote on war, and to direct policy. That is a direct democracy.

Therefore, the claim being made that the right to vote for a president is a direct democracy was a false assertion. Voting directly for president would be no different than voting for a governor or a senator, all of which are civic rights in a representative democracy.

I agree with everythibg you say except for your last sentence. I don't think voting for the president is a civic right in a representative democracy because the developed world has many representative democracies, especially in Europe, but most of those are parliamentary systems in which the citizens do not elect the prime minister. They vote for their party and the majority party chooses it leader who becomes pm (like if the speaker became president in the U. S.).

 

[Cypress]

Among world democracies, the U.S. is practically unique in disallowing citizens to directly elect head of state or head of government - and the only world democracy that allows the minority to dictate who controls the national government, aka government by the minority.

Among democracies, U.S. stands out in how it chooses its head of state

U.S. among few democracies that indirectly elect combined head of state/head of government

No other democratic nation fills its top job quite the way the U.S. does, and only a handful are even similar.

Besides the U.S, the only other democracies that indirectly elect a leader who combines the roles of head of state and head of government (as the U.S. president does) are Botswana, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, South Africa and Suriname. (The Swiss collective presidency also is elected indirectly, by that country’s parliament.)

In more than half (65) of the world’s 125 democracies, the head of state – nearly always called a president – is directly elected by voters. Thirty other democracies are classified as constitutional monarchies, and in the remaining 30, including the U.S., the head of state is indirectly elected.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...ands-out-in-how-it-chooses-its-head-of-state/

 

[Flash]

Common sense. Just how are you going determine who gets the EC votes if not by the popular vote as it exists in every state? What are you just going to make a law that says, DEMOCRATS win every year we are a 1 party state? Really? There are 2 choices. All or nothing or equal distribution as per the votes cast. Anything else would result in CHANGING the federal election rules void of any constitutional authority. Read Article 1, Section 1, Clause 3...….the words are to difficult to understand, "the Electors shall meet in their respective states …….." We do suppose that the state of Maine is still in the union and wishes to have a voice in all presidential elections? No state can do away with the requirement of the EC unless there is a supermajority ratification (75%) via ALL THE STATES.

The Constitution did not intend for states to distribute electors by popular vote because they opposed popular votes. Even states did not originally use popular votes to award electors. There were no popular votes (or very few) until 1824 when democracy became more popular in the states. So Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, etc. did not receive any popular votes. A few states began to choose some of the electors by popular vote and eventually all began using that method.

This was something the framers feared and what Franklin alluded to after the convention when asked what kind of government they created. "A republic, if you can keep it" he replied. He feared his republic would "deteriorate" into more democracy.

I think your post assumes states used popular votes from the beginning.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

newsflash,

you can't get rid of the electoral college in your state,

you can forfeit your votes toward the election I suppose by not certifying them, but I think the electoral votes would go to the popular candidate anyway.
what a bunch of whiny nut-bags residing in that statehouse, huh?

This is all about the "FEELS" and nothing more.

 

[Ralph]

Among world democracies, the U.S. is practically unique in disallowing citizens to directly elect head of state or head of government - and the only world democracy that allows the minority to dictate who controls the national government, aka government by the minority.

That's because the United States of America is not a representative democracy. The US is a representative Constitutional republic. Read article 4, Section 4, Clause 1.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

One American, One Vote.
A Californian’s vote should count as equally as a Nebraskan’s vote.

Anyone can play that geography game. 70,000 people in only three medium-sized states decided for the rest of us that a dunce who got blown out in the popular vote should be allowed to be president.

A lot of small, rural red states have more cows and corn fields than people.
Cows and corn fields do not vote, and they are not entitled to representation.

The small, rural, conservative states are already given vastly disproportionate power and advantage by over-representation in the U.S. Senate and by district gerrymandering in the House.

There is no plausible need that tiny, rural states need to also be given a disproportionate advantage in presidential elections. They are given more than enough disproportionate power and representation as it is.

If you intend this to mean that the election should be by a democratic vote, you would be wrong; because the founders never intended for America to be a "democracy".