Them Hartmann: Maine just took America one giant step closer to ending the GOP's grip on our elections

[Tom of Temecula]

What if the person the majority of Americans voted for became president? It usually happens, but no Republican has been initially elected to the White House by a majority of Americans since 1988.

Just imagine how different America (and the world) would be today if neither George W. Bush or Donald Trump had ever set foot in the White House because both lost the federal election, the national popular vote.

Wednesday, the State of Maine took America one giant step closer to ending the antidemocratic grip the GOP’s had on our presidential elections. Even though George W. Bush lost the 2000 election by a half-million votes nationally and Donald Trump lost in 2016 by 3 million votes, both ended up in the White House because of the Electoral College.

So, some smart political and constitutional minds got together and came up with a system whereby states representing 270 electoral votes (the amount to become president) pledge to commit all of their electoral votes, regardless of who won in their individual state, to whichever candidate won the national popular vote.

https://www.rawstory.com/popular-vote/

Great article, fascinating read. The 4 paragraphs here only scratch the surface.

[sanatanadharma]

1. The President represents ALL Americans and should be chosen by a majority of ALL

The Presidency is the only elected governmental office that is beholden to the USA, not just a single State or (smaller yet) district.

The President should be elected by a majority of individual Americans whose votes are all equal, which is not currently true under the Electoral College system.

End zip code discrimination!

[jaxexpat]

2. Interesting solution to this ancient travesty.

Still, the fact that a state has the power to do this, ignore and counter the will of that state's voters, exposes the whole fallacy of the electoral college. The electoral college selects the executive, despite what the majority of voters select at the polls. It has done so twice this century alone to the detriment to the nation and the world.

The tyranny of a governing authority countermanding the democratically expressed will of its citizens is the beating black heart of despotism. Why is this long-standing federal embarrassment only now being addressed by citizens of good will? Because, this spawn of non-democracy has birthed its misbegotten children before our very eyes. We plainly see the resultant disasters in the legacies of Bush and Trump. Only blind fools or criminal minds would not.

[MichMan]

3. If states believe in it, why not implement it now ?

Doesn't seem right to tell the voters in your state that it doesn't matter if your state voted for candidate "A", we are overruling you and giving them all to candidate "B", because a bunch of other states voted that way.

[ecstatic]

4. I don't like that work around

Supposedly putin wins the popular vote in Russia as well, and unfortunately, that's where we might be headed if tRump somehow gets back in the white house.

Popular vote only, with one person, one vote.

That's the fairest way.

[Kaleva]

5. This might violate the Compact Clause

Which prohibits a state from entering into an agreement or compact with other states without the consent of Congress.

[Goodheart]

11. How is that a compact with other states?

Maine is not obligating or asking anybody else to go along.

[Kaleva]

12. From the article in the OP

"To accomplish this, they organized what they call the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), and states have been signing up for several decades. "

https://www.rawstory.com/popular-vote/

[TwilightZone]

14. "for several decades"

After those "several decades", it's still a long way from having 270. It's not the "giant step" Hartmann claims it to be. It's just another small step in a journey that may have no ending.

And, of course as you noted, it's likely that it would fail at least one constitutional test. Its proponents vehemently insist otherwise, but it's never been tested.

[Kaleva]

16. SCOTUS will have the final if it gets that far.

[Lonestarblue]

6. Perhaps a fairer way to approach the issue would be to require states to choose proportional electors.

In most states where 50.5% of the votes go to candidate A, all of the state’s electors go to that person and the votes for candidate B are just ignored. Using the proportion of votes for each candidate seems fairer. I don’t think this system would necessarily benefit either party because Texas would be choosing some Democratic electors and California would be choosing some Republican electors.

[tanyev]

10. If you could get all 50 states to do it.

Remember during the Obama years Republicans tried to split the electoral vote in several states where they controlled the legislature, but the state had gone blue at the top of the ticket? It was the only way to save democracy!!1!

And yet they never, ever brought it up in solid red states where they could have easily implemented it. If they wanted to.

[brooklynite]

7. Never going to happen

The Blue leaning States will support it; that won't get you to 270.

[erronis]

8. Nice to supply the link to the original article

rather than forcing a click on rawstory.

https://hartmannreport.com/p/what-if-the-person-the-majority-of-543

[Tom of Temecula]

13. Oh dear

[ColinC]

9. It's about time Maine got on board!

Hopefully when dems take back full control in Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona, we can get it passed there too!

[maxrandb]

15. Just a correction

Bush II did win the popular vote in 2004, but we had just has the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor