Page 22 of 24 FirstFirst ... 1218192021222324 LastLast
Results 316 to 330 of 346

Thread: Maine votes out electoral college

  1. #316 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    7,318
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,883 Times in 2,239 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 124 Times in 120 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    But it is different from other states in that in Maine the winner take all does not necessarily go to the winner of the popular vote in Maine.

    Of course, Maine has made no changes at this point.
    So Maine is attempting to legislate a command for the EC to be UNFAITHFUL upon political command? And no one considered that to be disenfranchising or fascist/totalitarian in the least....especially the supposed party of EQUALITY?

    Again.....a misunderstanding of the constitution by these Maine Legislators? Unfaithful electors that refuse to reflect the will of a state's people, regardless of how a state decides to appoint those EC electors, would be considered "DISENFRANCHISNG" when ordered via state legislation. Have they not read and comprehended the articles set forth in the constitution in relation to the Electoral College? Even if the people do not directly vote for the president and vice president their votes are distributed in an equal and fair manner. Then we must consider the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution...

    The 15th Amendment PROHIBITS, "...the federal government and each state from denying a citizen the right to vote based upon a citizen's race, color or previous condition of servitude."

    Conclusion as provided via Scotus Opinion and precedent? "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or ABRIDGED...…….."

    Abridged: Condensed, Shortened, via REWRITING. Disenfranchising is disenfranchising and its UNCONSTITUTIONAL. A state may have the right to change from one format to another in consideration of the Electoral College....but no state has the constitutional right to demand their states votes not be counted toward the candidate of their choice via ordering their EC electors to be UNFAITHFUL on command. What's the point of having any state represented via the EC.....if a state can ignore the constitution and the right of every citizen regardless of, race, color, etc., to cast their votes and have them counted?

    As I said, this will not stand in the court system. Again simply apply the smell test in the SCOTUS decision and precedent established under U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton. If the court determines that a state has added extra qualifications to any federal candidate or taken away from any constitutional text through attempted state legislation in order to effect any federal election....THAT AUTHORITY DOES NOT EXIST. -- John P. Stevens

    Maine can join any conglomerate they wish and cast their EC votes through proxy of their EC electors.....but they cannot order on command any EC elector to be "UNFAITHFUL" to their states guaranteed REPRESENTATION as clearly defined in Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1. What's representative about being unfaithful to one's representative oaths and constitutional guarantees? As I said, it not only smells like fascism, totalitarianism and hate induced legislation....its UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS HELL.

    That damn constitution thingy is always getting in the way of these Social Justice Warriors that want to fundamentally change the United States of America from a constitutional republic to a socialist republic and wink while calling it a DEMOCRACY. Maine is proving just how DEMOCRATIC the democrats in that state are.....via demanding UNFAITHFUL representation of the states will.

    But....in the end.....will it make a difference? Maine is so blue one's piss turns green when you attempt to write your name in the snow.....it is populated mostly via people on fixed incomes and retirees that have bought into the propaganda that someone is going to take away their checks if they don't vote a certain way.....right now those 65 years of age an older is a growing demography while those in their 20s is a shrinking demography.

    All this bullshit hate and TDS because TRUMP squeezed out one EC vote? So the politicians on the left got together and said, "Lets enact some kneejerk legislation without considering its constitutionality or long term effects on our citizens." Its who they are, its what they do...….its like they have a short circuit between their brains ability to have a logical and reasonable thought and their emotions.
    Last edited by Ralph; 05-20-2019 at 09:03 AM.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Ralph For This Post:

    Earl (05-20-2019)

  3. #317 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Gone to the mattresses
    Posts
    22,458
    Thanks
    1,135
    Thanked 11,622 Times in 8,086 Posts
    Groans
    874
    Groaned 639 Times in 618 Posts

    Default

    The entire idea shows how bereft or principle and what shallow thinkers democrats are

    The only states to sign up are states that vote democrat right now so they have lost nothing. But voting patterns don’t stay that way forever. California used to be Red. Things change.

    It will never survive a constitutional challenge.

    Let the leftists have their little circle jerk.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to canceled.2021.2 For This Post:

    Earl (05-20-2019)

  5. #318 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    11,056
    Thanks
    4,929
    Thanked 3,685 Times in 2,733 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 707 Times in 647 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Granule View Post
    How does a baker rejecting a homosexual's request to bake his wedding cake affect you and your family? be specific.
    It doesn't.

    Now answer the question instead of spewing false equivalencies.

  6. The Following User Groans At TTQ64 For This Awful Post:

    Earl (05-20-2019)

  7. #319 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    52,291
    Thanks
    77,752
    Thanked 23,568 Times in 17,849 Posts
    Groans
    38,677
    Groaned 3,238 Times in 3,042 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ralph View Post
    So Maine is attempting to legislate a command for the EC to be UNFAITHFUL upon political command? And no one considered that to be disenfranchising or fascist/totalitarian in the least....especially the supposed party of EQUALITY?

    Again.....a misunderstanding of the constitution by these Maine Legislators? Unfaithful electors that refuse to reflect the will of a state's people, regardless of how a state decides to appoint those EC electors, would be considered "DISENFRANCHISNG" when ordered via state legislation. Have they not read and comprehended the articles set forth in the constitution in relation to the Electoral College? Even if the people do not directly vote for the president and vice president their votes are distributed in an equal and fair manner. Then we must consider the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution...

    The 15th Amendment PROHIBITS, "...the federal government and each state from denying a citizen the right to vote based upon a citizen's race, color or previous condition of servitude."

    Conclusion as provided via Scotus Opinion and precedent? "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or ABRIDGED...…….."

    Abridged: Condensed, Shortened, via REWRITING. Disenfranchising is disenfranchising and its UNCONSTITUTIONAL. A state may have the right to change from one format to another in consideration of the Electoral College....but no state has the constitutional right to demand their states votes not be counted toward the candidate of their choice via ordering their EC electors to be UNFAITHFUL on command. What's the point of having any state represented via the EC.....if a state can ignore the constitution and the right of every citizen regardless of, race, color, etc., to cast their votes and have them counted?

    As I said, this will not stand in the court system. Again simply apply the smell test in the SCOTUS decision and precedent established under U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton. If the court determines that a state has added extra qualifications to any federal candidate or taken away from any constitutional text through attempted state legislation in order to effect any federal election....THAT AUTHORITY DOES NOT EXIST. -- John P. Stevens

    Maine can join any conglomerate they wish and cast their EC votes through proxy of their EC electors.....but they cannot order on command any EC elector to be "UNFAITHFUL" to their states guaranteed REPRESENTATION as clearly defined in Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1. What's representative about being unfaithful to one's representative oaths and constitutional guarantees? As I said, it not only smells like fascism, totalitarianism and hate induced legislation....its UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS HELL.

    That damn constitution thingy is always getting in the way of these Social Justice Warriors that want to fundamentally change the United States of America from a constitutional republic to a socialist republic and wink while calling it a DEMOCRACY. Maine is proving just how DEMOCRATIC the democrats in that state are.....via demanding UNFAITHFUL representation of the states will.

    But....in the end.....will it make a difference? Maine is so blue one's piss turns green when you attempt to write your name in the snow.....it is populated mostly via people on fixed incomes and retirees that have bought into the propaganda that someone is going to take away their checks if they don't vote a certain way.....right now those 65 years of age an older is a growing demography while those in their 20s is a shrinking demography.

    All this bullshit hate and TDS because TRUMP squeezed out one EC vote? So the politicians on the left got together and said, "Lets enact some kneejerk legislation without considering its constitutionality or long term effects on our citizens." Its who they are, its what they do...….its like they have a short circuit between their brains ability to have a logical and reasonable thought and their emotions.
    Excellent, Thanks, Ralph.

  8. #320 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,717
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Althea View Post
    Makes no sense. You either believe in something or you don't. Of course, religion isn't the place to look for continuity. If you don't allow your employees to have an IUD, then you really shouldn't allow them to profit from same. If, of course, you truly don't believe in the concept.
    I can believe in something strongly but that does not mean I should keep my employees from investing in a retirement account. What my employees choose to do has nothing to do with my religious beliefs.

    Hobby Lobby allows its employees to have IUDs and they are free. The government pays for these devices just as they do for religious organizations, Medicaid, or under Obamacare. Everybody wins.

  9. #321 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,717
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Earl View Post
    Excellent, Thanks, Ralph.
    The Constitution gives Maine the power to distribute electors as they choose.

    There is no concept of a "faithless elector" in the Constitution because that is based on the concept that the elector should be faithful to the popular vote of that state.

    Since the Constitution does not contain any concept of a popular vote for president no electors could be unfaithful.

    Maine's actions cannot be challenged as unconstitutional since they are based on a future condition which might never occur.

    My comments have nothing to do with supporting (I do) or opposing the electoral college.

  10. #322 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    36,469
    Thanks
    16,663
    Thanked 20,737 Times in 14,332 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,387 Times in 1,305 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    I can believe in something strongly but that does not mean I should keep my employees from investing in a retirement account. What my employees choose to do has nothing to do with my religious beliefs.
    You should restrict their birth control, but your retirement investments should fund the companies you reject? That means you don't believe in it 'strongly'. Hobby Lobby should opt for the lower yield investments that stay away from the industries they claim to have a fundamental objection to. Again...religion is typically the last place to look for continuity.

    Hobby Lobby allows its employees to have IUDs and they are free. The government pays for these devices just as they do for religious organizations, Medicaid, or under Obamacare. Everybody wins.
    'Allows'? How humane of them. Is this a Fed, or State level funding program?
    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

  11. #323 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,717
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Althea View Post
    You should restrict their birth control, but your retirement investments should fund the companies you reject? That means you don't believe in it 'strongly'. Hobby Lobby should opt for the lower yield investments that stay away from the industries they claim to have a fundamental objection to. Again...religion is typically the last place to look for continuity.
    Would you want your employer to limit your retirement investments to lower yield instruments because of his religious beliefs?

    Quote Originally Posted by Althea View Post
    'Allows'? How humane of them. Is this a Fed, or State level funding program?
    You erroneously claimed they did not "allow" it: "If you don't allow your employees to have an IUD...."

    It is a federal program included under Obamacare intended for religious related institutions that object to some of the contraceptives offered under the insurance. This was the Supreme Court's solution to the dilemma between violating a person's religious beliefs (a constitutional right) and the free contraception included under Obamacare (not a constitutional right). Hobby Lobby does not violate its religious beliefs and the employees get free IUD's.

  12. #324 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    7,318
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,883 Times in 2,239 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 124 Times in 120 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    The Constitution gives Maine the power to distribute electors as they choose.

    There is no concept of a "faithless elector" in the Constitution because that is based on the concept that the elector should be faithful to the popular vote of that state.

    Since the Constitution does not contain any concept of a popular vote for president no electors could be unfaithful.

    Maine's actions cannot be challenged as unconstitutional since they are based on a future condition which might never occur.

    My comments have nothing to do with supporting (I do) or opposing the electoral college.
    There is no concept of a "faithless elector" in the US constitution? Just what does Article 4, Section 4, Clause one declare? "The union "guarantees" a republican form of government to all states...." What is a republican form of government? Ask James Madison as stated quite unambiguously in Federalist No. 10 (a historical document and its content that most liberals feign ignorance of its very existence). Republicanism is a representative form of government organization. Republicanism guarantees rights that cannot be repealed through majority vote. Republicanism formed the basis for several things, "The American Revolution", "The Declaration of Independence", "The US Constitution", and the following "Bill of Rights", Republicanism rejected a government format of being a Representative Republic...i.e, such as in the USSR..etc., and presented itself as a Representative CONSTITUTIONAL Republic...were no right found to exist in the constitution can be alienated (transferred) to any majority rule.....to include a STATE attempting to ignore the guarantee of representation to its people via political dictation.

    Of course there is Federalist No. 68....addressing certain rules pertaining to the Electors. The very first rule addressed by Hamilton(aka....Publius)?

    THE ELECTORS MEET ONLY WITHIN THEIR SPECIFIC STATES TO SELECT THE PRESIDENT

    Strange that Democrats often attempt to argue about things NOT FOUND in the CONSTITUTION, assuming that because something is not addressed that makes it legal. In fact the US CONSTITUION is not a list of things that the PEOPLE can do....its a negative document listing the things that a federal government cannot do. And one thing the Constitution does imply is that no state has the right to tell an Electoral College Elector.....how to vote, thus TRADITION has always been followed that Electors should remain loyal to the popular vote of each state and cast their votes accordingly.

    There has never been a SCOTUS decision regarding a FAITHLESS ELECTOR (that has established legal precedent).....there has been serval cases, but the issue is simply ducked by the court system. Democrats talk about others creating a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS …..yet they attempt to legislate one crisis after another. In reality the right case simply has not made its way to the SCOTUS....when it does there are any number of paths to argue against a state attempting to take away the constitutional authority of any Electoral College Elector to vote how he/she wishes. Most honest, righteous, and virtuous individuals would follow the will of the people...but no...democrats want the authority to demand that the EC vote be cast how the politicians want to vote on a national level.

    One simple question for the State of Maine? Since there is no legal precedent considering the FAITHLESS ELECTOR.....what is to stop ONE....or any number of Electors (depending upon state size) from going rouge and independent from any state mandate? Its a constitutional SLIPERY SLOPE....all because of TDS.

    Anyone find us ONE SCOTUS example of establishing precedent that would punish a EC elector for going rouge. Yet, Maine is going to legislate the EC into compliance with the state legislators dictates to hand over their authority to a national popular vote?

    Again....I must defer my opinion back to the obvious. Dictating anything other than reflecting the will of a peoples state in relation to choosing a POTUS is indeed voter disenfranchising.
    Last edited by Ralph; 05-20-2019 at 07:34 PM.

  13. #325 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,717
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ralph View Post
    There is no concept of a "faithless elector" in the US constitution? Just what does Article 4, Section 4, Clause one declare? "The union "guarantees" a republican form of government to all states...." What is a republican form of government?
    You are making too much of the guarantee of the republican form of government clause.

    Republican means representative, it has absolutely nothing to do with the electoral college. The original concept of the electoral college is that state legislatures would choose electors and those people would meet in the state capital and cast their electoral votes based on who they thought would make the best president. That choice had nothing to do with the popular vote because there was no popular vote in the Constitution or most of the states until about 1824; thus, there could be no "faithless elector" because there was nothing they were being unfaithful to. There would be no parties or candidates--electors just voted for their choice.

    There was no "will of the people" because there was no popular vote. The concept of "will of the people" suggests the will of the majority which Federalist #10 made it very clear the Constitution sought to avoid. The entire Constitution was designed to avoid the "tyranny of the majority" to prevent any group from imposing its will by fragmenting government power as much as possible.

  14. #326 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    7,318
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,883 Times in 2,239 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 124 Times in 120 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    You are making too much of the guarantee of the republican form of government clause.

    Republican means representative, it has absolutely nothing to do with the electoral college. The original concept of the electoral college is that state legislatures would choose electors and those people would meet in the state capital and cast their electoral votes based on who they thought would make the best president. That choice had nothing to do with the popular vote because there was no popular vote in the Constitution or most of the states until about 1824; thus, there could be no "faithless elector" because there was nothing they were being unfaithful to. There would be no parties or candidates--electors just voted for their choice.

    There was no "will of the people" because there was no popular vote. The concept of "will of the people" suggests the will of the majority which Federalist #10 made it very clear the Constitution sought to avoid. The entire Constitution was designed to avoid the "tyranny of the majority" to prevent any group from imposing its will by fragmenting government power as much as possible.
    No….I am making an obvious and logical point. The State of Maine....or any state can't have their cake and eat it also (an illogical contradiction based upon the Law of the Excluded Middle.....one of Maine's concepts negates the other in a logical sense). Either the state can control an EC elector or they cannot not.....both positions can't be true. Simply because the Constitution is silent in consideration of the EC elector....does not mean that the EC elector does not have to follow and accept the constitutional guarantees of ALL VOTERS (are the EC Electors not US citizens of the state?) Just as concluded by SCOTUS opinion (there is none in relation to stopping an EC Elector from being faithless)…..how is Maine going to demand faith through an act of legislation from all those who are appointed as EC Electors as they are suggesting they have the authority to do?

    The point is......THEY CANNOT; and follow the rule of law established in the Constitution regarding voter disenfranchisement and ignore it at the same instant. Either the EC elector is a free agent and can vote how they wish, as suggested by the State of Maine and cannot be mandated to vote via federal law....or the EC elector can be controlled by state law and must vote according to state political wishes.

    Maine claims to have the authority because historically the EC elector has the right to be rouge and independent not bound by state vote....yet on the other hand Maine says they can by an act of legislation force the EC Elector to vote how the state wishes. Which is it. A half dozen of one or 6 of another?

    My opinion based upon historical tradition.....the courts will tell them to eat shit and die.
    Last edited by Ralph; 05-21-2019 at 05:37 AM.

  15. #327 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,717
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ralph View Post
    Either the EC elector is a free agent and can vote how they wish, as suggested by the State of Maine and cannot be mandated to vote via federal law....or the EC elector can be controlled by state law and must vote according to state political wishes.
    There is no federal law involved. Currently, Maine uses one method to choose electors but can change that method if they choose as the Constitution allow. They are not using both methods at the same time. Currently, their electors are pledged to vote for the candidate of the party that nominated them. They may change that in the future to have the electors pledge to vote for the popular vote winner.

    In both cases electors are not really free agents but pledged to vote based on election results. Since it is questionable whether pledges can be enforced, all the Maine electors could have chosen to give their vote to the national popular vote winner in 2016 and accomplished the same thing as the pact.

  16. #328 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    14,413
    Thanks
    308
    Thanked 7,511 Times in 4,834 Posts
    Groans
    17
    Groaned 1,798 Times in 1,605 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grokmaster View Post
    The ELECTORAL COLLEGE is not under STATE JURISDICTION. Maine can do no such thing.

    Leftidiots gobble up whatever BULLSHIT they are SPOONFED BY THEIR MASTERS, no matter HOW RIDICULOUS and/or ASININE....
    Read something, anything, dumbass. Do you really think these people don't know what they are doing? Including those nasty ass "LIBERAL BITCHES", AKA, the non-partisan League of Women Voters who is spearheading or lending support and are giving talks all around the country. They want PRESIDENTS to be elected based on POPULAR VOTE. It is ENTIRELY WITHIN THE STATES purview to determine who or how they 'elect'.

    When the LWV came to talk to us in mid-MAR, they were at about 190 total electoral votes of the states that had ratified the bill, so Maine is + 4. Unless another has signed on that I don't know about, that's 194. 270 IS NEEDED. Surely you recognize where that # came from.

    (Don't know what 'phrase' they are using--ratified, accepted, other).


    The National Popular Vote, Explained | Brennan Center for Justice


    https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/national-popular-vote-explained

    Mar 14, 2019 - The Electoral College is one of the most undemocratic features of U.S. elections ... The Compact will go into effect only when states controlling at least 270 electoral votes have joined ... The addition of these three new states brings the number of pledged electoral votes to 189, 70 percent of the needed total.


    ADD: Just yesterday the OREGON Senate heard the bill and is expected to approve. It passed their house. They have 7 electoral votes.
    Last edited by Centerleftfl; 05-21-2019 at 03:27 PM.
    WK1 3/28-/4 _Cases 301k--Dead 18.1k Lethality 2.72%
    WK2 4/5-/13 _Cases 555k--Dead 22.1K Lethality 3.9%
    WK3 4/20-/21 Cases 774k -Dead 37.2K Lethality 4.8%
    WK4 4/22-/29 Cases 1M --Dead 58.8K Lethality 5.9%
    WK5 5/1-/8__ Cases 1.3M -Dead 75.7K Lethality 6.1%
    WK6 5/9-16__Cases 1.4M --Dead 85.8K Lethality 6.1%
    WK7 5/17-24_Cases 1.7M - Dead 97.6K Lethality 5.9%
    WK8 5/28 Cases 1.7M - DEAD 101.2K - Same

  17. #329 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,717
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teflon Don View Post
    It will never survive a constitutional challenge.
    What constitutional provision does it violate?

  18. #330 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Gone to the mattresses
    Posts
    22,458
    Thanks
    1,135
    Thanked 11,622 Times in 8,086 Posts
    Groans
    874
    Groaned 639 Times in 618 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    What constitutional provision does it violate?
    Seriously?

    Figgers a Trans Righty like you wouldn’t know

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-02-2019, 08:12 AM
  2. Replies: 280
    Last Post: 05-11-2018, 06:08 PM
  3. Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor
    By Text Drivers are Killers in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-07-2018, 07:57 PM
  4. Trump wins Arizona's 11 electoral votes
    By Stretch in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-10-2016, 09:58 PM
  5. Make that 365 - Obama won one of Nebraskas electoral votes
    By FUCK THE POLICE in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-09-2008, 05:54 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •