Alert: Maine Senate Passes National Popular Vote Bill To Bypass Electoral College

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Well, there you go. This is what you get when you give an idiot a sledgehammer. You might as well have a dictatorship as to have a bunch of morons voting for the one they like and the one that promises them the world every time (but never delivers).

Voting was always a stupid idea. It's just that it was slightly better than everything that came before it.

Voting in a pure democracy is a stupid idea, thus the electoral college to avoid mob rule. These Democrat states are voting for mob rule.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Lumenari

A pretty easy case actually... voter disenfranchisement.

I keep seeing this bogus argument. No one is disenfranchised by popular vote; if anything, if is more inclusive, ensuring that every vote counts in he overall tally, and winner does not take all, which is what the EC does in the majority of states. Unless you mean that in by passing this the EC votes won't count and, therefore, under the current system, all voters of the state will be disenfranchised by their votes not being counted.

That said, I don't see how a state passing this law will hold any weight, when the EC is a constitutional issue, which states' can't very well skirt.

If the majority of the voters in your state vote for someone...

Then their votes are given to the winner of the popular vote in America and it isn't who they voted for...

How is that not voter disenfranchisement for the citizens of the state?

Since the state has, by passing a law, taken the citizen's votes and applied them to someone else?

We are a Republic, NOT a Democracy.

It is the United STATES of America.... not America.

Why do people still not understand that simple concept?

/facepalm

People should be asking themselves.

If the popular vote was so meaningful why did they push the Russia false flag?

Anyone trying to bypass the EC are traitors to the republic.

The majority of people in the majority of counties in the majority of states determines the president.

Jesus, my country is beginning to really scare the crap out of me with this communist bulldirt!

a reply to: Lumenari

If the majority of the voters in your state vote for someone...

Then their votes are given to the winner of the popular vote and it isn't who they voted for...

Popular votes divide the vote evenly and fairly across the board: whoever gets the most in the tally wins. EC is winner take all, and disenfranchises those whose voters who are in the minority. When a state has X electoral votes and all go to one candidate without being proportionate to the actual popular vote, THAT is disenfranchisement.

We are a Republic, NOT a Democracy.

Why do people still not understand that simple concept?

Yes, we are a republic, based on and still in part operating on democratic principles. The people still vote on issues (locally) using popular vote, and even our representatives and senators are....elected through popular vote.

Why do people still not see the simple, larger concept of why popular vote is more fair?

/facepalm

Ditto.



ETA:

BUT, the EC is constitutional law, so it is what it is.

originally posted by: Lumenari
We are a Republic, NOT a Democracy.

It is the United STATES of America.... not America.

Why do people still not understand that simple concept?

/facepalm

This. I've been trying to reiterate this point on this site forever. Nobody gets it. Thank you.


a reply to: Liquesence

Yeah. It's a democratic republic.

a reply to: Liquesence

Are you suggesting that in a country this size, with so many local governments and economies, that the overall popular vote should be all end all? That's so absurd, and there's a reason we don't run the country that way.

originally posted by: sine.nomine

originally posted by: Lumenari
We are a Republic, NOT a Democracy.

It is the United STATES of America.... not America.

Why do people still not understand that simple concept?

/facepalm

This. I've been trying to reiterate this point on this site forever. Nobody gets it. Thank you.

a reply to: Liquesence

Yeah. It's a democratic republic.

It is frustrating when so many people, including our politicians, get this wrong. We ARE NOT a Democracy, we ARE NOT mob rule. WE ARE a Representative Republic

That's because another state isn't voting for a person of another state. When one state is voting for a governor or senator of said state then the popular vote comes into play.

During a presidential election. All states are voting for one person. The population of NY greatly out does the population of Utah or North Dakota. So yeah the elector collage is used to give those states a say.

Any one who votes for this should be hanged as a traitor.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Lumenari

A pretty easy case actually... voter disenfranchisement.

I keep seeing this bogus argument. No one is disenfranchised by popular vote; if anything, if is more inclusive, ensuring that every vote counts in he overall tally, and winner does not take all, which is what the EC does in the majority of states. Unless you mean that in by passing this the EC votes won't count and, therefore, under the current system, all voters of the state will be disenfranchised by their votes not being counted.

That said, I don't see how a state passing this law will hold any weight, when the EC is a constitutional issue, which states' can't very well skirt.

Wrong. Here in Washington State, how ever the city of Seattle votes, the state goes with it. Yep as long as the city of Seattle vote 62% for whatever, everyone in the state has to follow. The city of Seattle voted for water restrictions to save the salmon, farmers on the other side of the state were put under water restriction rules.

So yes under a purely popular vote, most people who are outside of the population centers get zero representation in any votes. Oh and as for this not being Constitutional, well the states will more then likely cry about states rights and Article 17 rights of the state. SO unless this gets handed to the SCoUS election 2020 will be the biggest fraud in American history, and could very well be the end of America (and no, I'm fear mongering)

originally posted by: Guyfriday

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Lumenari

A pretty easy case actually... voter disenfranchisement.

I keep seeing this bogus argument. No one is disenfranchised by popular vote; if anything, if is more inclusive, ensuring that every vote counts in he overall tally, and winner does not take all, which is what the EC does in the majority of states. Unless you mean that in by passing this the EC votes won't count and, therefore, under the current system, all voters of the state will be disenfranchised by their votes not being counted.

That said, I don't see how a state passing this law will hold any weight, when the EC is a constitutional issue, which states' can't very well skirt.

Wrong. Here in Washington State, how ever the city of Seattle votes, the state goes with it. Yep as long as the city of Seattle vote 62% for whatever, everyone in the state has to follow. The city of Seattle voted for water restrictions to save the salmon, farmers on the other side of the state were put under water restriction rules.

So yes under a purely popular vote, most people who are outside of the population centers get zero representation in any votes. Oh and as for this not being Constitutional, well the states will more then likely cry about states rights and Article 17 rights of the state. SO unless this gets handed to the SCoUS election 2020 will be the biggest fraud in American history, and could very well be the end of America (and no, I'm fear mongering)

Should some states try to go through with this, the matter will get fast tracked to the SCOTUS before the 2020 election without question. The court has surprised me in the past with some of it's rulings (namely Obama Care), but I fail to see how this could be ruled anything but unconstitutional.

Also, does anyone out there actually think that if Hillary had won with the EC victory and lost the popular vote, that we would even be talking about this? the answer is no, and even our left leaning members should see this.

a reply to: infolurker

Meh, until they lose... then they'll change it back

The worst part about this is that the President was never meant to be elected based on popular vote. The people meant to be elected based on popular vote are the house and senate.

Anything to win

They want illegal aliens to vote.

They want teenagers to vote.

They want no I.D. to vote.

Now they want this.

I guess the dead vote has just not been quite enough to get them over the top lately.

If they don't win in 2020 I promise you they'll be pushing for a pet vote.

Meow/Woof 2024.

This is the kind of stuff that starts revolutions and secessions.

a reply to: infolurker

harvardjol.com...

Abstract Since the 2000 election “misfire” produced a President who won the Electoral College but lost the national popular vote, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (“the Compact”) has garnered support across the nation. Under the terms of the Compact, the states would thereafter pledge their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of the outcome of the election within their own state. The Compact, already successfully approved by eleven states and the District of Columbia, needs its signatories to possess at least 270 electoral votes before it takes full effect and converts the Electoral College into a de facto direct popular election of the President. The current compacting states possess 165 electoral votes, and therefore need only 105 more before the Compact takes effect, a total that can be reached with the consent of as few as four more states. This article argues that this possibility makes the Compact a constitutional crisis–in–­­waiting. Although this crisis is not yet upon us, it lurks in the shadows and must be addressed before it has the chance to alter a presidential election and take away any and all effective electoral power from as many as thirty–nine states. This article explains that the Compact is unconstitutional because it promotes combination among the states and effectively creates a direct popular election. Because these results are precisely what the Framers deliberately sought to avoid when they carefully detailed the “finely wrought” electoral procedures in Article II, Section 1, the Compact makes an impermissible fundamental alteration to the Electoral College. This Note examines the historical evidence of the Federal Convention, ratification debates, and writings of the Founding era and, in doing so, concludes that the Framers specified these procedures to prevent combination among the states and allow each individual state to vote according to its distinct interests. The Compact would force a state’s electors to disregard their state’s unique interests and, instead, vote for whomever secures a plurality of the national popular vote, regardless of that candidate’s performance in that specific state. To prevent this crisis-in-waiting from occurring, this Note concludes that if states ever attempt to enforce the Compact, a court should apply the “finely wrought” standard from Chadha and City of New York and strike down the deal, thereby preventing supporters of the Compact from passing a de facto constitutional amendment that deprives the non–compacting states of their current political power in presidential elections.

longer read but SCOTUS will crush it as unconstituional and the above source is a really good read on why it would not fly

originally posted by: sine.nomine
Voting in a pure democracy is a stupid idea, thus the electoral college to avoid mob rule. These Democrat states are voting for mob rule.

Maine has been a very blue state, so if 90% of the state voted republican then there would be major changes at the state level. This like all things the liberals seem to do tends to bite them in the butt in the end. They create something like #metoo movement and it eats themselves alive.

Seems they are throwing out all the stops for 2020, but they don't look past that.

1) the SC will rule against this.
2) it's bad for Democrats - talk about shooting themselves in the foot. States like CA and CO are also doing this, They are a sure fire win for Democrats, but the popular vote could go the Republicans way.

I bet you won't see the Dems do this for House and Senate seats.

originally posted by: dubiousatworst
The worst part about this is that the President was never meant to be elected based on popular vote. The people meant to be elected based on popular vote are the house and senate.

The Senate was not designed for popular vote. It was designed to be like the House of Lord's...the supposed best and brightest (and monied interests) choosing their two Senators...usually by the state legislators...to balance the power with the popularly elected House.

That was the balance of powers as envisioned by the Founding Father's...between the masses and the elites, not between the branches of government. When it was changed to electing Senators, that was arguably the turning point that broke that balance.

Yep, this is potentially problematic. the last time this was discussed I went a dug around about about the scientist who developed this and came up with some possibly troubling information.

From the second post of mine linked above:

Anyway, what I'm thinking is this, Koza (or whomever put him up to this) posits the problem to his machine regarding transitioning to a national popular vote rather than an electoral college vote for president but it has to be done in such a way as to avoid the need for a constitutional amendment because they know they'd never get something like this passed through congress.

The machine then spits out this idea for a National Popular Vote Interstate Compact as a means to achieve the same ends (popular vote assignment of electoral votes) without having to amend the constitution.