Maine votes out electoral college

Aimée said:
No, it won't go to the courts because they're not voting it out. What they are doing is changing the way the electoral college would vote for president. They're wanting to change it to whoever won the popular vote. It's up to the individual state as to how they handle those votes.
Click to expand...
It would require an amendment to the Constitution which defines the Electoral vote.
 
Earl said:
It would require an amendment to the Constitution which defines the Electoral vote.
Click to expand...

No, they are not abolishing the Electoral College. It is up to the individual state to determine how they would like their votes to be cast. Maine and Nebraska have different systems already in place for how those votes get determined. A Constitutional Amendment is not necessary.
 
Aimée said:
No, it won't go to the courts because they're not voting it out. What they are doing is changing the way the electoral college would vote for president. They're wanting to change it to whoever won the popular vote. It's up to the individual state as to how they handle those votes.
Click to expand...

Oh…...you mean just like 48 OTHER STATES they are changing to WINNER TAKES ALL by popular vote? As declared in the US CONSTITUTION, "When the voters (of the Electoral College) from each state meet :palm:they will cast their votes...…." As always from leftist state representatives.....its all NOISE and BLUSTER as they are powerless in this constitutional republic to do anything other than adapt to the standard that calibrates all the law in these United States, THE US CONSTITUTION. That constitution thingy sure is a nuisance to those who attempt to propagate the false premise that this nation was founded as a democracy.

What does the constitution guarantee? "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union......a republican form of government...." -- Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1

Why this guarantee and not a guarantee of democracy? See Federalist No. 10, the companion document that explained the reason for such existing clauses in the Constitutions....presented to each state before the vote to ratify this contract among the states known as the Untied States Constitution.


Federalist 10 explaining the inclusion of Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1. Liberals feign AMBIUTY in asking what is a guarantee of REPUBICANISM? Madison is quite "unambiguous" in explaining the need for such a guarantee. Democracies always fall because of mob rule that ends in violent revolution due to the fact that a democracy is not compatible with the personal rights of personal property etc.,

Again, ever wonder why there are 3 branches of government that are equal in authority and power? Why there are 2 houses of congress, one that legislates via population size from each state, while the other house (the senate) does not go by population size but establishes 2 representatives from every state regardless of population with that house impowered to actually ratify all acts of legislation coming from the lower house? Giving a voice of authority to even the smallest of states regardless of population.

Its because we live in a REPUBLIC whose rule of law rests entirely calibrated by a CONSTITUTION not congress critters who must comply with the actual words in the Constitution instead of simply making up laws as they see fit depending upon the mood of the MOBS that control their states.
 
Last edited:
Ralph said:
Oh…...you mean just like 48 OTHER STATES they are changing to WINNER TAKES ALL by popular vote? As declared in the US CONSTITUTION, "When the voters (of the Electoral College) from each state meet :palm:they will cast their votes...…." As always from leftist state representatives.....its all NOISE and BLUSTER as they are powerless in this constitutional republic to do anything other than adapt to the standard that calibrates all the law in these United States, THE US CONSTITUTION. That constitution thingy sure is a nuisance to those who attempt to propagate the false premise that this nation was founded as a democracy.

What does the constitution guarantee? "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union......a republican form of government...." -- Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1

Why this guarantee and not a guarantee of democracy? See Federalist No. 10, the companion document that explained the reason for such existing clauses in the Constitutions....presented to each state before the vote to ratify this contract among the states known as the Untied States Constitution.


Federalist 10 explaining the inclusion of Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1. Liberals feign AMBIUTY in asking what is a guarantee of REPUBICANISM? Madison is quite "unambiguous" in explaining the need for such a guarantee. Democracies always fall because of mob rule that ends in violent revolution due to the fact that a democracy is not compatible with the personal rights of personal property etc.,

Again, ever wonder why there are 3 branches of government that are equal in authority and power? Why there are 2 houses of congress, one that legislates via population size from each state, while the other house (the senate) does not go by population size but establishes 2 representatives from every state regardless of population with that house impowered to actually ratify all acts of legislation coming from the lower house? Giving a voice of authority to even the smallest of states regardless of population.

Its because we live in a REPUBLIC whose rule of law rests entirely calibrated by a CONSTITUTION not congress critters who must comply with the actual words in the Constitution instead of simply making up laws as they see fit depending upon the mood of the MOBS that control their states.
Click to expand...

Either that, or they are looking to discount their own state's voters, and just cast their electoral votes based upon the national popular vote count.
 
Althea said:
Oh, I don't know. Maybe because birth control is illegal, and they are now forced to have numerous children that they cannot afford?
Click to expand...

Birth control is illegal? Where did you ever get that crazy idea? It is easier, cheaper, and more available than it has ever been. It is even free in some insurance plans.
 
It would require an amendment to the Constitution which defines the Electoral vote.

Lots of luck with that.
 
Ralph said:
As declared in the US CONSTITUTION, "When the voters (of the Electoral College) from each state meet they will cast their votes...…."
Click to expand...

Yes, and they can cast their electoral vote for the national popular vote winner if they choose. It does not say who the electors must vote for and it certainly had nothing to do with popular votes since they did not even exist in presidential elections in the early elections.

Can a state require their electors to vote for the person who won the popular vote in their state? If so, they can also require them to vote for the national popular vote winner. I think it is a dumb idea, but it is constitutional.

Some states bind their electors to vote for the popular vote winner in their state and some do not. It is questionable whether they can be bound to vote a certain way since the Constitution does not require it.
 
dukkha said:
not good either. Primaries need to be strung out a bit so we can see who has staying power, or late surges
Click to expand...

Agreed, but the nomination contest was already over by the time states with later primaries got to vote (CA was not until June). Usually, we know the nominee by the end of March.
 
Flash said:
Yes, and they can cast their electoral vote for the national popular vote winner if they choose. It does not say who the electors must vote for and it certainly had nothing to do with popular votes since they did not even exist in presidential elections in the early elections.

Can a state require their electors to vote for the person who won the popular vote in their state? If so, they can also require them to vote for the national popular vote winner. I think it is a dumb idea, but it is constitutional.

Some states bind their electors to vote for the popular vote winner in their state and some do not. It is questionable whether they can be bound to vote a certain way since the Constitution does not require it.
Click to expand...

A states electors, any states electors is not going to cast their electoral votes for the candidate that didn't get the popular vote in their state,

that's just a really bad idea, there would be an uprising in that state
 
Getin the ring said:
A states electors, any states electors is not going to cast their electoral votes for the candidate that didn't get the popular vote in their state,

that's just a really bad idea, there would be an uprising in that state
Click to expand...

State law could require electors to vote for the national popular vote winner just as today some require them to vote for their state's popular vote winner. In most cases if a Democrat wins the state it is the slate of Democratic electors elected to the state's electoral college and those people are also voting for their choice for president.

Some electors do not vote for the popular vote winner in their state. In 2016 seven electoral votes went to other people--Kasich, Powell (3), Sanders, Paul and Faith Spotted Eagle.

Electors do not have to vote for a candidate running for president--they can vote for anyone they choose. The electoral college did not anticipate parties that would nominate candidates to campaign for the office. It was expected the electors would simply meet and vote for their choice for president and not from candidates.
 
Aimée said:
No, it won't go to the courts because they're not voting it out. What they are doing is changing the way the electoral college would vote for president. They're wanting to change it to whoever won the popular vote. It's up to the individual state as to how they handle those votes.
Click to expand...

This is nothing but a way to circumvent the constitution's electoral college, and give the most populist states an unfair advantage over less populated states. One major effect would be that candidates would focus on the bigger states and ignore the smaller states. This is nothing more than an attempt by blue states to institute mob rule.

ADDED: This would also remove the power of the House and Senate from electing the president if the 270 vote threshold was not reached.
 
Last edited:
keep in mind the first time a blue state that takes this route sees its electoral votes going to a Republican who's won the popular vote they will be reversing this law.......
 
Ralph said:
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.
Click to expand...

First, it does not follow from that logic that we should be a nation where the minority routinely gets to dictate who controls the federal government.

And second, we are a representative democracy. We elect people to represent us. That is basically how all the representative democracies on the planet operate. Your word games are never going to change that fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top