re: Maine joins unConstitutional National Popular Vote states

That’s the way it should be. Our constitution is over 200 years old. There’s plenty of absolutely archaic practices in there, the electoral college being one of them.

quote:

---

There’s plenty of absolutely archaic practices in there, the electoral college being one of them.

---

\

Would you prefer an actual democracy? Where voters decide legislation instead of going through representatives.?

quote:

---

Maybe you should go find another country to live in

---

There are plenty of parliamentary systems he can go enjoy. Though even those systems do not directly elect their chief executive.

Or France, who does elect their President directly, but has also undergone no less than 8 violent or destructive changes in government since the US Constitution was ratified.

quote:

---

This goes with a subject I almost made into a thread yesterday.

It's been 20 years since the GOP has won the popular vote, and that required a war-time incumbent to do it.

Before that you have to go back to his father in 1988.

So over the past 9 presidential elections (36 years), only 2 have had the GOP winning the popular vote. It's almost guaranteed 2024 will be a DEM popular vote victory again.

---

True but it is not guranteed that the dems win a majority of the popular vote. What happens then? Well since this thread is talking about Maine then lets examine Maine's law and use it as a hypothetical standard for all the states in the compact.

quote:

---

A. If there are 2 or fewer continuing candidates, the candidate with the most votes is
declared the winner of the election.
B. If there are more than 2 continuing candidates, the last-place candidate is defeated
removed from consideration and a new round begins

---

Maine will use a ranked choice if there are more than 2 candidates if the NPV ever goes into effect. Lets take a look at what happens when we apply a ranked choice system to the elections where neither candidate won a majority of the popular vote. If Perot voters and the other right leaning voters ranked GHWB ahead of WJC then GHWB wins in 1992. If Ross Perot voters ranked Bob Dole ahead of WJC then WJC loses in 1996. Gore would have won 2000 if Ralph Nader voters ranked Gore ahead of W. In 2016, DJT would beaten HRC. Assuming that left leaning voters (Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders voters) ranked HRC ahead of DJT and right leaning voters (Gary Johnson, Evan McMullin, Jon Kasich, and Ron Paul voters) ranked DJT ahead of HRC. HRC would have had 67,496,983 and Trump would have had 68,412,083 votes. So it would all depend on how independents and the people who vote for the minor parties rank their candidates.

And you know what's fricking sad?

That in this thread, and all over this country, are a bunch of monkey see monkey do "smarty pants" imbeciles (or "useful idiots" if you will) who've been conditioned since they were old enough to comprehend the english language to be the ignorant beta pussy progressives they are. And they think they're critical independent thinking individuals, but they're just fricking sheep. Every last one of them. And their overlords don't give one single isolated shite about them.

quote:

---

I didn't say it wasn't. I said it was a corruption of what was intended. Just because the founders didn't see the loophole doesn't mean it fits the original design.

---

I disagree. There is no loophole in this case. The founders intended that President would not be a direct popular vote but decided they best way was to use electors selected by the legislature and the manner they see fit.

Even if every state did the popular vote thing, a state legislature could still chose not to send the slate of electors the people chose. That would still be constitutional because ultimately it is the state legislatures that decide, no other entity.

That is exactly how the constitution was created in this case.

The funny this is, MAGA policy is the republicans best chance to regain the popular vote. But in typical Republican fashion, they stumbled into the right movement that just happens to have the most polarizing leader that has driven away just enough people to keep the democrats in power.

quote:

---

, Trump could win Maine but the "combined" popular vote nationwide goes to Biden, Maine would then apportion their electors to Biden, regardless of the will of their in-state voters.

---

Theoretically, yes.

And if the voters of Maine don't like it, they can vote in a new state legislature that protects their Presidential voting power at the state level. That's how democracy works.

I have seen some things claiming this compact is irrevocable, which I imagine would be unconstitutional (or at least require the Congressional approval)

quote:

---

I have seen some things claiming this compact is irrevocable,

---

When sovereign entities are involved, how can anything ever be irrevocable?

quote:

---

Whereby their electors go to the Presidential candidate with the most popular votes....

---

I have always felt that a true modern fix to the Electoral College would consist of:

2 votes for the winner of the popular vote of each state
1 vote for the winner of the popular vote in each congressional district

That way the vote is balanced between large states and small states. Also, it gives more candidates an incentive to run nationally instead of just 5 or 6 swing states.


California would get 54 votes, and depending on the Republican and Democrat dilution of the districts and the make up of the other 52 votes could be split 40-12 based on the current elected Representatives.

Same would be true in Texas. Texas has 38 Congressional Districts and is split 25-13.

I am just using congressional district makeup as an example, that doesn’t mean the voters could vote for a Republican Congressman and still vote a Democrat for President or a Republican for President and Democrat for a congressman.