Maryland's dramatic electoral college reform:

[HowHasItComeToThis]

Source: EXAMINER

Maryland's dramatic electoral college reform: Will throw votes behind winner of national popular vote! "Going by the national popular vote will reawaken politics in every part of the country." 4/11


http://www.examiner.com/a-666207~Md__first_to_approve_move_to_sidestep_national_Electoral_College.html




Read more: http://www.examiner.com/a-666207~Md__first_to_approve_move_to_sidestep_national_Electoral_College.html

[aquart]

1. So what the people of Maryland want does not matter?

What am I missing here?

[youngdem]

2. This is a (poor) attempt to neuter the Electoral College

after proponents of this bill were wronged by the results of the popular vote vs. election result in 2000.


I don't support this. There is a reason for the electoral college, and that is so campaigns don't focus on pandering to the five or six largest states to win the presidency to the detriment of all other states.

Every time the people of this country do something wrong because they were uninformed, suckered, or fell for base pandering, they want to blame the system instead of their poor choice. It is the American way.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Actually the reason for the electoral college

was to make sure that 'the mob' (that would be us) did not have a direct say in the selection of the president, and that instead the elites (aka land-owning white men) would choose from among themselves who would run the country. That is still pretty much the system that is in place now, despite all the bullshit they tell you about how useful this nonsense is.

If 'states' played no role, if instead the popular vote determined the election of the national leader, politicians would not pander ot the 5 or 6 largest states, they would pander to the majority of the population. I think you meant that might mean that population centers - urban areas - would become more important. Yes they would as that is where people actually live.

[Pacifist Patriot]

5. When did the state-pandering myth become common place?

I'm always surprised when people aren't familiar with the elitism inherent in our founding documents.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Beats me.

I heard this defense first after the theft in 2000 but I doubt that it was new then. It is a rather obvious confusoid for arguing in support of the system.

The organization of the senate, giving each state equal weight, provides more than enough protection to the 'rights' of small states. I have yet to hear a good explanation for why we should continue to maintain the fiction that we are a confederation of independent states, but as long as we do maintain that fiction, the senate amply provides protection for state's rights.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

8. This is not true at all

Why would a Presidnt give weight to a Senator from say ND if he doesn't need those votes to win elections? Why would Senators from CA or NY care about what a Senator from ND needs, especially if they are from a different party?

[hedgehog]

20. Give us an example of something a senator from North Dakota

would want from the Federal Government that would not also benefit California or New York. Alternatively, tell us what the Senator from North Dakota would want that senators from California and New York would oppose, then prove that it would be to the benefit of the entire country.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. huh?

"Why would a Presidnt give weight to a Senator from say ND if he doesn't need those votes to win elections? "

The pork flow to small states occurs within the senate and pretty much without presidential influence. I do not see that changing (and too bad for that) because of reforming the election of the national leader to be a national election.

"Why would Senators from CA or NY care about what a Senator from ND needs, especially if they are from a different party?"

For the same reason they do now: they might need the vote. Nothing in the senate would change. That is the point. Small states would continue to have hugely outsized representation in the senate.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

7. Ummm actually no

At the time of the Convention and prior to Reconstruction, "States" were entities that had representation as well as the people. The State houses would pick Senators and the people would pick the Representatives. Loyalties to States were much tighter than loyalty to a Federal govt and no Constitutional document would make it through ratification unless it recognized that.

Not to mention, yes the Founders were against DIRECT Democracy, which is arguably a bad way to govern a country. They wanted a Republic where the minority still had some influence. Hence such a thing as advise and consent about Presidential appointments.

Pandering to the population centers would be a very bad thing for this country. That way a Presidential candidate would visit what, 5 cities I think is the recent number, LA, New York, Miami, Chicago, and I forget what other(s) to win an election. How is that good for the residents of Wyoming who are just as much US citizens and deserve a say in the election.

The electoral college was the best compromise at the time and is still the best compromise for the people of the less populous States. After all, the Federal Govt determines money that is given to States and individual citites through appropriations bills which are signed by the President. How is a President accountable to Bismark, North Dakota residents if he doesn't need them to win an election?

[Recursion]

12. Frankly Wyoming can shove it

How is that good for the residents of Wyoming who are just as much US citizens and deserve a say in the election.

Well, currently someone in Wyoming is in many ways more of a citizen than someone in New York or California, since his vote "weighs" a whole lot more than someone in a more populous state.

After all, the Federal Govt determines money that is given to States and individual citites through appropriations bills which are signed by the President. How is a President accountable to Bismark, North Dakota residents if he doesn't need them to win an election?

You could say that about any town: the President doesn't need Bismark itself necessarily but under a more equitable scheme he would need enough towns like Bismark to win the national race. And at any rate the current solution is tilted way too far in the North Dakotans' favor; a few hundred thousand people have two senators just like 30 million people from CA do. Frankly I think they've screwed things up enough and need to just sit back for a few years.

I'll add, there are about as many residents of North Dakota as of DC, and we don't have *any* Senators, and still only a non-voting Representative (thank you so much for blocking the DC voting rights bill Waxman, you ass...) But that's a separate question since the status of the District has constitutional implications.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

16. Look at the ORIGINAL intent of the Senate

which was to give the STATES themselves a representative. The people already had theirs, in the House. In those times, the tie to the State was much much deeper. That separation ended with the popular election of Senators, they use to be elected by the State Houses, not popular election.

[hedgehog]

22. All a campaign is these days is an attempt to get a few minutes each day

on NATIONAL news programs. The candidates would be far better off if they stayed at home and came out each day with a well thought out statement or proposal. How about a video teleconference with people from across the country? The current pattern of spending months on the road dashing back and forth across the country is nuts. I don't know if it really made a difference, but the epitome of this foolishness was Nixon running around to fulfill his pledge to visit all 50 states back in 1960. The entire country could see what he was on the televised debates. What did all that airline travel accomplish beyond the destruction of his health?

[Warren Stupidity]

33. After all, the Federal Govt determines money that is given to States

Well yes it does, but the president doesn't. All the president gets to do is to sign those bills. The states are amply represented in the senate, the cities arguably by the house.

The original intent of the electoral college was, as I said, to keep the mob (that would be us) at bay.

[MGKrebs]

10. One could also say that the electoral college acts as a "fail safe'

to try to prevent a seriously whacked person from being elected. You might say that it hasn't always worked, but that isn't really a reason to eliminate the possibility of it working.

The problem that this is trying to solve, if I am not mistaken, occurs because the electors from each state almost always are given to the candidates party who wins the popular vote in their state, and they vote unanimously for that candidate, even if it was a close popular vote.

The better fix may be for each state to select their electors in proportion to the states popular vote instead of assigning them all to the winning Party.

[Recursion]

13. I seem to recall Maine does that

Back in '92 I think Perot almost got enough votes in Maine to get one of their electoral votes.

[MGKrebs]

18. I think you are correct.

According to Wikipedia:
"Two states do not elect the Presidential Electors as a single slate. Maine and Nebraska elect two electors by a statewide ballot and choose their remaining Electors by congressional district. The method has been used in Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1991, though neither has split its electoral votes in modern elections."

That sounds like a good method to me.

[Recursion]

11. People misunderstand the Electoral College

There is a reason for the electoral college, and that is so campaigns don't focus on pandering to the five or six largest states to win the presidency to the detriment of all other states.

My impression was that it was more so that a demagogue couldn't fool the churlish, uneducated masses into voting for him. And, just like the Senate, its other goal is to over-represent rural states.

Right now "solid" states are pretty much ignored. The Democratic nominee is pretty sure he or she can carry Maryland, so he or she has no incentive to bring out the vote there (ie, winning Maryland with 25% turnout vs. 90% turnout doesn't make a difference). Similarly, the Republican nominee is pretty sure he won't take Maryland and so isn't going to bother much unless there are some down-ticket races he can help out on. Instead, everybody focuses on this one clump of states between the blue ridge and the great plains, and another clump in the south Rockies. The rest of us feel kind of left out. If the Democratic (or Republican) nominee had an incentive to increase their turnout everywhere, I think things might be a little better.

Incidentally, nothing in the Constitution requires that a state's electors vote as a block, or that they vote according to the popular vote in that state. All the Constitution says is that the legislature shall provide their means of appointment; if MD wants to make this the means of appointment, more power to them (literally).

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

15. As far as the Constitution is concerened they can have a beauty contest to appoint them.

N/T

[wilde]

17. Impact of EC

Yes, people are misunderstanding the effect the EC has and the impact of this reform. The EC doesn't cause people running for president to focus on large or small states, it causes campaigns to focus on a limited number of "Battleground States". So New Mexico (small) and Florida (large) may get attention, but the citizens of California and North Dakota are both effectively disenfranchised.

Removing the EC will allow the campaigns to direct their efforts (and mold their positions) towards the voter in the nation as a whole. I just don't see how a progressive could be against this. In addition, what you're likely to see is a move towards the left in the democratic party, as the need to eek out a small victory in Florida is replaced by the need to gather together a large nationwide progressive majority.

Not only will the practical result likely be "good," but the principle of valuing and competing for each citizens vote equally will be strengthened. This is a good thing and with the electorate becoming increasingly informed and active thanks to the netroots, I don't see how anyone on the left can be against bringing more democracy to how we vote for President.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. Welcome to DU!

And I agree with everything you just said. How progressive democrats can argue against democratizing the election of our national leader is a total mystery to me.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Read the article.

"The plan would only take effect if states representing a majority of the nation's 538 electoral votes decided to make the same change."

This is a national effort to transform our election into a direct popular election - you know the sort that every other major democracy has - without a constitutional amendment. Every state is free to decide how its electoral votes are alloted, so no amendment is required. The plan only takes effect when enough states sign on for it to make sense. Maryland's voters would then be counted in a block of electoral votes all alloted by the actual popular vote.

[Hosnon]

9. I wonder if such an attempt to circumvent Article V would survive a

constitutional challenge.

Could make for an interesting display one day in the future.

[Recursion]

14. How is it circumventing article V?

The relevant clause for the appointment of electors is in Article II:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

Article V concerns the amendment to the Constitution; this is not a Constitutional amendment but rather a legislature taking up its Constitutional duty to direct the manner of appointing a number of electors for the state.

[Hosnon]

41. The argument would go like this:

No provision in the Constitution can be altered except via the amendment process spelled out in Article V. If it is held to be a Constitutional principle that the President is not to be elected via a national popular vote (based on the intent of the electoral college), the States would be amending the Constitution in an unconstitutional manner.

It turns on whether or not the Founders intended that the President not be elected via a national popular vote and therefore created the electoral college or whether the electoral college was created due to something like an inability of the Founders to agree on how the President should be elected (thus leaving it to the States).

[Warren Stupidity]

27. It doesn't circumvent anything.

Here is the relevant section of the constitution regarding selection of electors:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

I am missing the part where the constitution specifies anything else at all about how those electors are selected. No amendment is required for the states to get together to form a compact to implement direct election by popular vote. The only requirement I see is that their respective legislatures must each enact such legislation.

[Hosnon]

40. It could be contrary to the intent of the electoral college.

By creating the EC, the Founders seemed to not want the national popular vote to decide the Presidential election. If that is held a Constitutional principle, an amendment is required to change it.

However, the intent could have been to simply leave it up to the States, as no consensus on how the President should be elected could be reached.

[JerseygirlCT]

32. Yeah, what's with that? This is supposed to be a good thing? nt

[Uncle Joe]

19. My favorite method is to split up the electoral votes based on the

% of popular votes in a given State, I believe the winner take all approach disenfranchises the minority of voters in said States.

[hedgehog]

21. Anyone who wants to defend the Electoral College needs to be reminded that

Al Gore WON the POPULAR vote in 2000. George Bush became president only because of the Florida miscount which threw Florida's electoral votes to him.

In other words, all it took was screwing up the votes in a couple Florida precincts to steal the entire election. Try doing that with a 50 state popular vote!

[MGKrebs]

23. But blaming it on "the electoral college" is too simplistic and

even misguided. The EC can be made to more accurately reflect the popular vote AND help protect us from future potential Hitler's or Le Pen's.

(Grammaticists- Is that correct usage of apostrophes?)

[hedgehog]

24. So, where was the Electoral college in 2000 or 2004?

It sure didn't save us from Bush!

[rinsd]

25. The Constitution needs amending because if a single instance of electoral imperfection?

Nothing wrong with the EC in 2000, the fault lies with the USSC.

[Warren Stupidity]

28. No because we ought to each get one vote for president. nt.

[rinsd]

29. That is a different argument.

The argument that the system was at fault for the problems in 2000 is simply not correct. FL should have been Gore's and the popular vote vs electoral vote should have been a moot point.

Just like argument that (according to one of the sponsors) the new MD law will mean candidate's will pay more attention to MD, it is a play upon emotion that is quite frankly dishonest.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. Gore trampled Bush in the popular vote.

It most certainly is relevant. A corrupt electoral process in Florida, a state run by the brother of one of the candidates, was only the deciding factor because of the stupid corrupt elitist anti-democratic electoral college bullshit, and of course a corrupt supreme court. The supreme court would have had no chance to act corruptly if we had direct elections, like every other major democracy.

[MGKrebs]

35. What other "major democracies" are you referring to?

I am curious and would like to investigate their systems.

[Warren Stupidity]

38. There are two standard forms: parliamentary republic, presidential republic

As far as I know, ours is the only presidential republic without direct election of the president. Parliamentary systems have direct election of the parliament with the winning party selecting the prime minister, although in general it is understood who will be PM at the time of the election.

Wiki has a pretty good list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_leaders#List_of_state_leaders


Note also that presidential republics are frequently quasi-military dictatorships - for example Pakistan. I'm not convinced at all that we have anything like the best form of democratic republic out there, in fact we might have one of the worst.

[fshrink]

36. France to begin with.

Universal direct suffrage, paper ballots, counted and verified by hand and under monitoring of multi-partisan committees.

[slackmaster]

34. The proposed system would not guarantee a 50-state popular vote

Unless every state adopted it, it would still be possible for the popular and EC votes to give different results.

[hedgehog]

37. Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact ,

the states that sign agree that when they hold a deciding majority in the EC, they pledge to instruct their electors to follow the popular vote regardless of the outcome in the individual states. For example, Maryland votes for Candidate X in the popular vote.Nationwide, Candidate Y wins the popular vote. However, enough states have signed the compact to control 270 votes in the electoral college, so Maryland's electors will vote for candidate Y.

Again, the compact goes into effect only when enough states have signed to make it effective.


http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php

[slackmaster]

39. A half-assed fix is worse than no fix at all

Again, the compact goes into effect only when enough states have signed to make it effective.

To repeat myself, it can't be 100% effective unless every state signs on. Changing the system doesn't cost nothing. If we're going to fix the EC problem, let's fix it all the way, and fix it in a way that is not subject to constituational challengse.

Constituation amendment abolishing the EC, or nothing. That takes only 38 states, not 50.

:argh:

[Emillereid]

42. This is great news - since so many of the states with small populations

benefit from the electoral college they are unlikely to ever allow the passage of an amendment guaranteeing one person - one vote for president. I live in California and a person in Wyoming has four times the voting power than a person in CA. To quote Dionne: "The three electors from Wyoming, with an estimated 2006 population of 515,004, represent 171,668 people each. California, with a population of 36,457,549, gets 55 electors, each representing 662,865 people. A presidential vote cast in Wyoming thus has nearly four times the value of a vote in California." He has an excellent op-ed piece on the Maryland decision: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/01/AR2007040100808_pf.html

Our legislature voted for the same deal -- but the terminator terminated it. Asshole.