MD to drop out of Electoral College?

[Avatar4321]

It's a movement in a whole lot of states at the moment. Basically, state's invoking their right to chose electorates by a method of their own choosing - in this case, by nationwide popular vote.

...and it unconstitutional

What? The constitution explicitly says that the states may choose their electors in any manner they wish.

He's arguing that since this process disenfranchises the MD voters, it violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. As the EP Clause is an amendment to the Constitution, it supercedes the clause granting the States power to appoint delegates as they choose.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives have no use for "States", they're so jejune and archaic, a notion from a time when evil white slaveowning men wore white wigs.

I am thy Federal Government, thou shall have no other government but me; you are my portion, I shall keep you in food stamps and unemployment as long as your days, I shall annointeth your head with a mallet if you try to stand on your own.

 

[Ed Spacer]

My state is run by idiots

Which state?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

It is both a feel good and a 'take that,' but it has no real application. Its practical effect is less than declaring march 14 national Pie day.

 

[Avatar4321]

My state is run by idiots

Which state?

Maryland.

Though I suppose you could replace that with just about any State right now.

 

[Inthemiddle]

It's just incredibly stupid.
Suppose the popular vote went for the GOP candidate and he has 268 electoral votes. Further suppose, in Maryland, the Democrat candidate won. Maryland, with their new law, would decide the election for the GOP, against the will of their citizens.

First of all, you don't have any idea how this law works. Your hypothetical is impossible. The law requires that it will not take effect until enough additional states enter the compact to constitute a majority in the electoral college. So you scenario cannot happen. The idea is that the majority coalition will together ensure that the electoral college always reflects the popular vote. This law (which was signed nearly four years ago), will not take effect until enough states have joined to make the effort significant.

 

[Ernie S.]

Wrong. Do the math

 

[Inthemiddle]

Wrong. Do the math

The law would not take effect until at least 270 electoral votes are committed to the system. Thus, the popular vote will ALWAYS result in an electoral college victory. What is so difficult to understand about that?

 

[Meister]

A person can sure tell that our country is being run by a bunch of bush league lawyers.

Again....this is not what the FF's had intended when selecting the delegates. But the lawyers can always twist the facts to create a lie.
The FF's probably thought that there would never be the amount of shysters running the shop that we have.

 

[Lakhota]

Why the Right Wing Is Petrified of Letting Voters, Instead of the Electoral College, Pick Presidents | Election 2012 | AlterNet

EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A State-Based Plan For Electing The President By National Popular Vote

Gallup: Americans Would Swap Electoral College for Popular Vote

 

[Meister]

Why the Right Wing Is Petrified of Letting Voters, Instead of the Electoral College, Pick Presidents | Election 2012 | AlterNet

EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A State-Based Plan For Electing The President By National Popular Vote

Gallup: Americans Would Swap Electoral College for Popular Vote

That would give the power to just 5-6 states.
Most Americans don't even know how and why the electoral college was set up.

 

[Vast LWC]

...and it unconstitutional

Yeah... no. It isn't.

 

[Vast LWC]

The problem with this is that it effectively disenfranchises the Maryland voters form the Presidential election. For example if 100% of the voters in Maryland voted for Obama and Romney won the National vote, then Maryland would vote for Romney, making all the Maryland voters votes worthless.

It does not.

If all the states do the same, which is required for the law to go into effect, then it's one person, one vote, nationally.

At the moment, large population states are in fact disenfranchised due to under-representation in both congress and the electoral college.

 

[Lakhota]

Why the Right Wing Is Petrified of Letting Voters, Instead of the Electoral College, Pick Presidents | Election 2012 | AlterNet

EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A State-Based Plan For Electing The President By National Popular Vote

Gallup: Americans Would Swap Electoral College for Popular Vote

That would give the power to just 5-6 states.
Most Americans don't even know how and why the electoral college was set up.

Responses to Myths about the National Popular Vote Plan

 

[Meister]

Why the Right Wing Is Petrified of Letting Voters, Instead of the Electoral College, Pick Presidents | Election 2012 | AlterNet

EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A State-Based Plan For Electing The President By National Popular Vote

Gallup: Americans Would Swap Electoral College for Popular Vote

That would give the power to just 5-6 states.
Most Americans don't even know how and why the electoral college was set up.

Responses to Myths about the National Popular Vote Plan

You can keep going to your echo chamber for your sites to post, but fact of the matter is that most people in this country are not educated with the electoral college.....fact


WHO in the hell put out your PDF site? You could have wrote that one.

 

[Vast LWC]

No.. we have a branch of government that is chosen by popular vote.. and rightfully the other 2 branches have differing ways of being chosen... good for the whole balance of power thing...

What branch would that be exactly?

The executive, the legislative or the judicial?

 

[g5000]

It's just incredibly stupid.
Suppose the popular vote went for the GOP candidate and he has 268 electoral votes. Further suppose, in Maryland, the Democrat candidate won. Maryland, with their new law, would decide the election for the GOP, against the will of their citizens.

This is exactly right. If enough states join the compact (eight plus DC have, so far), then the voters of Maryland, and every other state in the compact, may find the majority of their votes completely negated by the compact. An argument could be made that this is large scale disenfranchisement.


The best illustration of why we have an electoral college is the baseball World Series. It is possible to score the most runs but still lose the series. 1960 is an example. The Yankees scored 62 points, the Pirates 20. And yet the Pirates won four of the seven games, and thus the Series.


If the World Series changed the rules to award the cup to the team with the most points in 7 games, the whole strategy of the sport would change.

Just so if the electoral college were eliminated.

As a tiny state, Maryland is cutting its own throat.

And there is no guarantee Democrats will always have the majority popular vote. They are probably cutting their own throats, too.

 

[Vast LWC]

And dangerous for a nation our size.

One man, one vote is a dangerous concept? Interesting.

 

[Vast LWC]

The Constitution of the United States balances the power between the individual people, the State governments, and the Federal Government.

The idea comes from historical evidence when you have divisions of power between 3 groups, you have:

1) Stability
2) Peace
3) Liberty

When you weaken the power of one and create only two parties of power, you then have a power struggle between the two remaining parties where one dominates the other. This creates, tension, conflict, and an eventual loss of liberty.

The reason why we have so much tension between the Federal Government and individuals is because we've eliminate State power in the Federal government which previously provided additional checks on Federal Government. Thus in a struggle for power between the individual and the Federal Government, the Federal government will triump over time, as we are seeing now.

If we want to strengthen the individuals, we, counterintuitively, need to restore power to the states. Not take more power away from the States. The best way to do this would be to repeal the 17th amendment and Restore the Senate to the States as the Constitution originally designed.

Not only would that provide another check on the Federal government, but it would severely weaken the power of special interest groups because they would no longer be able to finance the direct election of Senators.

Wow, so, not only should we make sure that the presidential election creates millions of disenfranchised voters, but we should also make sure that Senators are appointed instead of elected?

And this, in your opinion, would allow for more power to the individual?

Have you read any George Orwell?

 

[Lakhota]

Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America

The Indefensible Electoral College | Mother Jones