MD to drop out of Electoral College?

[Vast LWC]

To keep the 3 branches of government chosen in 3 different ways... helping to ensure balance of power...

To also have ALL the states, you know the things that give the federal government its power, have their voices heard and not washed out in a direct popular vote election

We have a branch of government chosen by the popular vote... and that is the legislative

Once again Dave, that is incorrect.

Due to the fact that the Senate is part of the legislative branch.

But you can keep on repeating this, I guess.

 

[Vast LWC]

I wouldn't recommend DC, it's a shit hole and you can't even carry a firearm to protect yourself in one of the most crime ridden places of America.

Perhaps it wouldn't attract so many undesirable types, if people living there had representation.

Which they don't.

Why would any self-respecting American CHOOSE to live in a place where they had no representation?

 

[Vast LWC]

Hmmmm...since the people in Montana have about 3 times as much common sense as the people in California, that seems to be about right.

How about we start up a new system where if you've run your State into the ground like California...you're not allowed to vote in national elections? When you straighten out your own mess...then you're allowed to influence the rest of the country? Seems fair...right?

Hmmm....

OR, we could have all the smaller states repay the abnormal amount of federal dollars per person they have received over the years, (thanks to over-representation in the federal government) with interest, to the larger states.

That would solve the larger states budgetary problems in one swoop.

Why are you smaller state residents living off the Federal Dole anyway? You should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

[freedombecki]

My state is run by idiots

My sympathies.

 

[Vast LWC]

Why should a large State have influence on smaller ones? The way that California runs itself is a joke. You're saying that they should hold more sway over how the country is governed simply because they have more people? Sorry, Flopper...but the Founding Fathers were intelligent enough to understand that majority rule was not always the best way TO rule. Given the stability of our political system compared to most others it's hard to argue against what they set up.

Why the fuck should some yokel jackass in a smaller state have 3 times the voting power of another American Citizen?

And again, lets have the smaller states pay back the larger states for all that money they've been ripping them off for over the years, with interest, and then we'll see who's broke and who's not.

Larger states pay more taxes, per person, than smaller states, and receive less federal funding than smaller states.

Why? Because the smaller states have over-representation in the federal government.

And, after living off the federal dole, stealing all the large states' money for all these years, you now have the gall to turn around and say that large states are irresponsible with money?

ROFL. That's rich.

 

[Vast LWC]

They were not just “appointed.” They were elected in a nominally republican type representative process. Prior to the 17th amendment the Senators were nominated and elected by electors, the state legislatures. Those state legislators were elected by the pertinent populations.

Consider what has happened to senatorial term longevity in Maryland since the passage of the 17th amendment: Before, from 1789 to its passage in the two senate classes (Cl. I & III) the average MD senator served 5.5 years.

Since its passage (1913 to present) the terms for the two classes have increased to on average 10.63 years.

That suggests they remain in office almost twice as long as they did before the amendments passage.
[The multiplier is 10.63/5.49 = 1.94]

Prior to the 17th amendment the states senatorial representation in the body that is created by the constitution to represent states – not simply populations – changed along with the state legislatures. Therefore the current will of the state's population was reflected in the US Senate. If a senator was exceptionally good at representing his state, a legislature might have been inclined to keep him in office; otherwise the office holder changed to reflect the political winds in the state.

The fact that senatorial terms since the 17th amendment are almost twice as long suggests that senators amass power and use that power to sustain themselves in office. Nowadays, too often challengers are seen as upstarts, and citizens hesitate to elect them and give up the influence that their senator's longevity in office seems to afford them. Money flows to his re-election coffers, and just before an election he can bombard them with commercials describing the good deeds he's done and benefits he has gotten for them.

US Senators are now no more than super-representatives.

Maryland is no exception to the rule on the longevity of time served by US Senators:
Pennsylvania's multiplier before and after is about 1.6 and Vermont's about 1.8

You know, you're right! What we REALLY need as a nation is to place yet another level of confusion and obfuscation between government and the people.

Because, obviously, to people like you, the American people are just too stupid to elect their own representatives.

I'm glad you've opened my eyes. And, hey, let's do this for all office-holders.

The know-nothing little people can elect their town councils, which will elect their county officials, which in turn will elect their state senators, who will then elect everyone at the federal level.

That way the actual people will have nearly no say at all, and we can have a nice new nobility here the Kingdom of the USA.

 

[American Horse]

What you fail to take into account is that the "people" of the US, of all types creeds lready have proportional representation in the people's House. The US Senate was designed to represent states in a federation of states. Then the people's house, and that of the states, the US Senate, pass on legislation.

The lower and upper houses originally were a design to represent both people as entities and states as geographical entities; for states their commercial interests, to advise and consent to the president and the federal government acting in their behalf, such as treaties, diplomacy, the Supreme Court, and finally the cabinet appointees, because those appointees, by acting in the name of the president, act for and in the name of the states.


It was a more useful and viable system in that earlier form than the present case with a regular house with ordinary representatives, plus a higher house with super representatives.

 

[Vast LWC]

What you fail to take into account is that the "people" of the US, of all types creeds lready have proportional representation in the people's House. The US Senate was designed to represent states in a federation of states. Then the people's house, and that of the states, the US Senate, pass on legislation.

The lower and upper houses originally were a design to represent both people as entities and states as geographical entities; for states their commercial interests, to advise and consent to the president and the federal government acting in their behalf, such as treaties, diplomacy, the Supreme Court, and finally the cabinet appointees, because those appointees, by acting in the name of the president, act for and in the name of the states.


It was a more useful and viable system in that earlier form than the present case with a regular house with ordinary representatives, plus a higher house with super representatives.

Ok, so they have half proportional representation, and half completely disproportional representation.

So, we're only half disenfranchised! Goody for us!

And how do you explain those small population states milking their over-representation for all it's worth in the funding department?

And how does ANY of that explain the complete disenfranchisement of the city of Washington DC? A city with a larger population than the state of Wyoming?

 

[Againsheila]

What's happening in Maryland? On Tuesday, Maryland became the first state in the union to drop out of college. The electoral college, that is.

Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley signed a law that would award the state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. As long as others agree to do the same. "Actually, Maryland will drop out only if a lot of other states do, too. Maryland's new law will go into effect only if enough states pass similar laws to total 270 electoral votes -- the number needed to elect a President," O'Malley said.

Dropping out of the electoral college - CNN

When the electoral college was created it was left up to each state to cast the ballots however they wished. Maryland hasn't opted out, they just changed the way they do it and it's legal for them to do so.

 

[Againsheila]

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

How so? I researched the electoral college years ago and there are no federal rules whatsoever about how the states choose to cast them, that is left up to the states. Theorectically the governor of the state could cast the votes for Mickey Mouse and it would be legal.

 

[Againsheila]

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.

I understand the power of the state to choose it's electorates by whatever method...

To tie it to the winner of the national popular vote gives MD ZERO voice to be heard...

Idiotic move...

I agree, but they still have the right to cast their votes however they want.

 

[Againsheila]

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.

Exactly....

 

[Againsheila]

What's happening in Maryland? On Tuesday, Maryland became the first state in the union to drop out of college. The electoral college, that is.

Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley signed a law that would award the state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. As long as others agree to do the same. "Actually, Maryland will drop out only if a lot of other states do, too. Maryland's new law will go into effect only if enough states pass similar laws to total 270 electoral votes -- the number needed to elect a President," O'Malley said.

Dropping out of the electoral college - CNN

Wow. Winning an election by getting the most votes. How novel!

May I remind you, we live in a republic, not a democracy.

 

[Againsheila]

Wow. Winning an election by getting the most votes. How novel!

Idiot...

Has NOTHING to do with how the state votes, according to the proposal... If you could comprehend, you might catch that

And there is good reason, and it has been explained many times, why we have differing ways for obtaining our government officals in each branch of the government... it is a GOOD thing that not all offices are chosen by direct popular vote elections

That "good" reason would be..that the majority of people in this country are not the conservative corporate zombies you think they are..

The Electoral College is antiquated and designed to keep white landed gentry in power.

Simple as that.

The goal of the electrol college was to make sure that our president wouldn't be decided by the votes of those only in highly populated areas. It was suppose to make sure that the president represented all of us, not just New York and California.

 

[Dragon]

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...

Balance of power between the people and -- what, exactly?

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

If so, it's a TERRIBLE idea. Government is supposed to be an expression of the people's will, a way of making and implementing collective decisions. To have government operate independently of the people, so that we may speak of "balancing" the power of the government as such an independent entity against that of the people, is a recipe for tyranny.

No, thanks.

 

[Dr Grump]

What's happening in Maryland? On Tuesday, Maryland became the first state in the union to drop out of college. The electoral college, that is.

Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley signed a law that would award the state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. As long as others agree to do the same. "Actually, Maryland will drop out only if a lot of other states do, too. Maryland's new law will go into effect only if enough states pass similar laws to total 270 electoral votes -- the number needed to elect a President," O'Malley said.

Dropping out of the electoral college - CNN

Wow. Winning an election by getting the most votes. How novel!

May I remind you, we live in a republic, not a democracy.

Your republic is a form of democracy

Democracy | Define Democracy at Dictionary.com

 

[zzzz]

In fact, among the 13 original states, circa 1787, the greatest population difference from state to state was an 10:1 ratio between Virginia and Delaware.

United States Senate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But the majority of US citizens could not vote back then. Only property owning adult white men, which amounted to 10 to 16% of the population. Talk about a ruling elite...

 

[Oldstyle]

Balance of power between the people and -- what, exactly?

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

If so, it's a TERRIBLE idea. Government is supposed to be an expression of the people's will, a way of making and implementing collective decisions. To have government operate independently of the people, so that we may speak of "balancing" the power of the government as such an independent entity against that of the people, is a recipe for tyranny.

No, thanks.

Yet we've had an orderly transition of power and no tyrants popping up in the entire history of our country? And you want to change our system because liberals feel it might be easier for them to win an election?

 

[Vast LWC]

If so, it's a TERRIBLE idea. Government is supposed to be an expression of the people's will, a way of making and implementing collective decisions. To have government operate independently of the people, so that we may speak of "balancing" the power of the government as such an independent entity against that of the people, is a recipe for tyranny.

No, thanks.

Yeah, a good portion of the founding fathers also thought slavery was a good idea.

It's a good thing we changed that.

But according to these guys, anything the founding fathers decided must have been the right thing to do, which indicates that they believe emancipation was a bad idea.

 

[Vast LWC]

Yet we've had an orderly transition of power and no tyrants popping up in the entire history of our country? And you want to change our system because liberals feel it might be easier for them to win an election?

Ah yes, obviously the only thing holding back tyranny and revolutions in our country is disproportional representation.

Thanks for clearing that up...