Another State moves to support Democracy

Maine Senate passes bill giving state's electoral votes to national popular vote winner

(CNN)Maine's lawmakers passed a bill that would give the state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who won the national popular vote, taking a step toward becoming the 15th state to enact such a law.

The Maine Senate voted 19-16 Tuesday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would give all committed states' electoral votes to the winning popular vote candidate should the group accrue the 270 votes necessary for a majority.

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and the District of Columbia have all committed to the pact. The most recent addition, New Mexico, put the total at 189 electoral votes.

Maine is currently one of two states, along with Nebraska, that splits its electoral college votes instead of adhering to the winner-takes-all policy most states follow. Should the Maine House pass and Gov. Janet Mills sign the bill, Maine would contribute another four votes towards the 270. CNN has reached out to Mills on whether she intends to sign the bill.

Former Maine Gov. Paul LePage alleged earlier this year that if such a law were to pass, "white people will not have anything to say."

"What would happen if they do what they say they're going to do, white people will not have anything to say," he said. "It's only going to be the minorities that would elect. It would be California, Texas, Florida."

The Electoral College effectively results in voters casting ballots not for their desired presidential candidates, but for 538 electors who in turn select candidates. The mechanism clinched President Donald Trump the 2016 presidential victory despite Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton winning a popular vote majority by nearly 3 million votes.

And the issue has already reached the 2020 race. Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren said during a CNN town hall in March that she supported doing away with the electoral college.

"My view is that every vote matters, and the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting and that means get rid of the Electoral College -- and every vote counts," she said. Other candidates have since taken up the same position.

CORRECTION: This story has been updated to correctly reflect that Maine and Nebraska are the two states that split electoral college votes.

Not sure about this one. At this point, it's a pact that red states have no intention of following, and Murphy's Law states that 2020 will be the year that Trump wins the popular vote but loses the EC in the absence of this compact. Besides, what's to stop a swing state run be Republicans (like OH) from passing a law to counteract incorrectly cast electoral votes?

incorrectly? the States get to decide how their EC votes are distributed.

deactherunner said:

Not sure about this one. At this point, it's a pact that red states have no intention of following, and Murphy's Law states that 2020 will be the year that Trump wins the popular vote but loses the EC in the absence of this compact. Besides, what's to stop a swing state run be Republicans (like OH) from passing a law to counteract incorrectly cast electoral votes?

Click to expand...

It's the right, fair thing to do. If Trump wins the national popular vote as a result, he should be President. Same with any other Republican going forward. The EC is monumentally fucking stupid.

Why doesn't anyone ever think of the white people? -lepage

Shooshmoo said:

It's the right, fair thing to do. If Trump wins the national popular vote as a result, he should be President. Same with any other Republican going forward. The EC is monumentally fucking stupid.

Click to expand...

I was just saying the same thing in another thread before noticing this thread. But I agree with runner that I seriously doubt many, if any, red states sign on in the near future.

Difficult to envision Donald winning the popular vote in 2020.

cville deac said:

I was just saying the same thing in another thread before noticing this thread. But I agree with runner that I seriously doubt many, if any, red states sign on in the near future.

Click to expand...

Look, they're not even going to be able to understand the math around the national popular vote interstate compact. Time for them all to secede and GTFO. Loser goes.

Being pro-life isn’t Christian. At least not anymore than thinking that blowing up planes is taught by Mohammed.

I saw people on faceplace from Indiana complaining that if we went to a popular vote, their vote would not count. It must be some GOP talking point, because dozens were stating it. I do not understand this logic at all - are they saying that because Indiana is a relatively small state, they will not be entitled to a disproportionate impact on the election?

Ball State Deac said:

I saw people on faceplace from Indiana complaining that if we went to a popular vote, their vote would not count. It must be some GOP talking point, because dozens were stating it. I do not understand this logic at all - are they saying that because Indiana is a relatively small state, they will not be entitled to a disproportionate impact on the election?

Click to expand...

IN is an average size state, and I'd imagine an IN citizens vote with the EC would be approximately the same as it would be in a popular vote system. It's the small states with a few EVs where a citizen's vote counts more than in the big states. An alternative to the current EC would be to take away 2 EVs per state and DC that represent the 2 senators, so that you'd have 436 EVs. That would lessen the effect of smaller states' citizens having their vote count significantly more. And because there are a few more red states than blue, that would get rid of the 6-12 point EV advantage Pubs have off the top. But in the particular case you're talking about, it just sounds like a nonsensical GOP talking point.

Shooshmoo said:

It's the right, fair thing to do. If Trump wins the national popular vote as a result, he should be President. Same with any other Republican going forward. The EC is monumentally fucking stupid.

Click to expand...

I agree with this, in principle, just like I support the re-enfranchisement of felons in FL even though it might not give the result I want. The difference, as I see it, is that the Interstate compact does not fix the electoral college in the same sense that the FL measure does with felons-it just voluntarily puts blue states at a disadvantage. Realistically, what has to happen for the EC to go away is for a Republican candidate to lose the EC despite winning the popular vote, because the Dems are the only ones who might sign on to such a fix despite getting favored by the old result.

I saw people on faceplace from Indiana complaining that if we went to a popular vote, their vote would not count. It must be some GOP talking point, because dozens were stating it. I do not understand this logic at all - are they saying that because Indiana is a relatively small state, they will not be entitled to a disproportionate impact on the election?

Click to expand...

What kills me about arguments like these is that the EC gives politicians reason to ignore "decided" states like Indiana-the campaign in like 10 swing states. Without the EC, voters in any state could conceivably be the deciding vote, and that would give candidates reason to campaign in IN, or upstate NY, or Texas cities, or almost anywhere else that usually gets ignored during election season.

It's a popular GOP talking point because many Trumpites honestly think that if we went to a simple, straight popular vote then big blue states like CA and NY would pick the winner every time. What I've heard many Republicans argue is that the EC gives smaller (red) states an "equal say" in who becomes POTUS, and big blue states don't get an advantage. What they leave out is that the EC actually discriminates against big states by skewing electoral votes to smaller states, and it gives them an outsized proportion of the electoral vote. So, they're fine with people in CA, NY, IL, etc. having their votes discounted while WY, SD, ID, etc. get a larger share than their small populations would entitle them to.

In other words, the EC is hurting the people it’s supposed to be hurting.

06deacon said:

In other words, the EC is hurting the people it’s supposed to be hurting.

Click to expand...

Amazing that a system that was designed to give more power to the less powerful is actually working.

The centers of power in our nation will always be the large population centers. The EC is designed to make sure that the rural population also has a voice in the direction of our nation. It works quite well.

The founders were pretty smart dudes.

I’m as disappointed as anyone (and more than many) that our system put a horrible human being like Trump in office sans winning the popular vote.

And I agree the EC served a useful purpose in our nation’s founding. And probably does still.

No idea if we’ve got the formula right, but the idea behind the EC (as I understand it) seems reasonable.

Wrangor said:

Amazing that a system that was designed to give more power to the less powerful is actually working.

The centers of power in our nation will always be the large population centers. The EC is designed to make sure that the rural population also has a voice in the direction of our nation. It works quite well.

The founders were pretty smart dudes.

Click to expand...

62.7% of the population lives in incorporated cities of any size based on what the last census was reporting. I don't know how one person one vote doesn't give rural populations a voice in the direction of our nation. It seems like Pubs are now clinging to this rationalization now that they control a nationally elected office with a minority that is getting skewed from the EC.

ConnorEl said:

I’m as disappointed as anyone (and more than many) that our system put a horrible human being like Trump in office sans winning the popular vote.

And I agree the EC served a useful purpose in our nation’s founding. And probably does still.

No idea if we’ve got the formula right, but the idea behind the EC (as I understand it) seems reasonable.

Click to expand...

The EC serves a purpose as long as it provided representation that roughly matched the population as a whole. EC has always matched the popular vote, or any minor derivations were always so immaterial that objectively you could disregard them. 2016 was different. The loser had millions more votes than the winner.

Wrangor said:

Amazing that a system that was designed to give more power to the less powerful is actually working.

The centers of power in our nation will always be the large population centers. The EC is designed to make sure that the rural population also has a voice in the direction of our nation. It works quite well.

The founders were pretty smart dudes.

Click to expand...

The white people in slave states were the “less powerful people.” That’s sad, Wrangor.

One person, one vote is straight forward. There’s no reason why someone’s vote should count more or less simply because of where they live. In the current system, general election candidates aren’t going to go to your state. Without the EC, a vote in Jackson, MS counts as much as vote in Canton, OH or anywhere in CA.

Perhaps even more importantly, the EC helps states who are more aggressively denying the right to vote.

This is just another example of Republicans viewing equality as oppression.

Wrangor said:

Amazing that a system that was designed to give more power to the less powerful is actually working.

The centers of power in our nation will always be the large population centers. The EC is designed to make sure that the rural population also has a voice in the direction of our nation. It works quite well.

The founders were pretty smart dudes.

Click to expand...

This just does not make any sense to me. Regardless as to where you live, you get one vote. Everyone's vote counts the exact same, whether you are in a "power center" or rural america.