MD to drop out of Electoral College?

[Flopper]

We condemn other countries for not having democratic elections, yet we reject the truly democratic election process in selecting our president.

 

[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.

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?

You do understand why DC, the governmental and administrative capital is not a state don't you? Why don't you do some research?

And as for the small populations being represented first in the house (with EC electors of the same number) and then being represented as states (with EC electors of the same number); what you see there as disproportionate representation is the only thing we have preserving a federal system.

You might think the federal system would best be annulled and done away with for a fully democratic electoral system , or equal representation (requiring losing the Senate) in its place, but did you ever consider the consequences of that? If that were the case, there would be no place in the country you could go to to find relief from an overburdening system, no competition for new ways of solving old problems. That would be a system that would level us all to the lowest common denominator. Now when the taxes get to be too high in New Jersey a person, company, or corporation can move to Florida or Texas.

Eliminate the federal system by devouring the states and that option is gone forever. Don't think it can't happen. It can and it will.

And how do those small states milk the larger states? Name the ways. You should have a short list – let us have it right now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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!

By disenfranchising the voters of Maryland. How unAmerican.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We condemn other countries for not having democratic elections, yet we reject the truly democratic election process in selecting our president.

Yeah! Why did Bush start the Electoral College?!

(That's my way of saying you're a moron)

 

[Inthemiddle]

What you seem to support is true democracy...majority rules. That could easily be turned into a dictatorship wherein elections are irrevocably meaningless.

Are you kidding me? Democracy is dictatorship?

Stop trying to change the Constitution!

Nobody is trying to change the constitution. The constitution dictates that each state's electors shall be chosen by whatever manner the legislatures thereof deem fit. That's what this law sets out. Maybe you should stop trying to ignore the constitution.

 

[Inthemiddle]

By disenfranchising the voters of Maryland. How unAmerican.

No, it's not. Each and every Maryland voter will still have a vote, which will contribute to results of the overall popular vote. Maryland is empowering not just each and every Marylander to have their vote mean something, but the rest of the country as well.

 

[jillian]

most people in this country are not educated with the electoral college.....fact

Perhaps. But what does that matter? What is the objection to relying on a popular vote for the Presidency?

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

it has nothing to do with balance of power. it has to do with keeping the hoi palloi from voting because they weren't trusted by the landed gentry who started this country. my representative doesn't vote for me. i vote for me. and i want my vote to choose the president, not the vote of someone who has a totally different agenda.

interestingly, i find that it's the anti-government sorts who think government should pick our president and tell people what to do with their bodies, whether it's a woman exercising her constitutional right to reproductive choice, a gay couple marrying,women being able to obtain contraception or a guy who's wife or a guy having to make the decision to let a wife whose brain has liquified keep her alive by artificial means.

that doesn't sound a whole lot like small government.

but tell some yahoo he has to wear a seatbelt when he drives and they lose their minds and start to shriek.

 

[JakeStarkey]

By disenfranchising the voters of Maryland. How unAmerican.

No, it's not. Each and every Maryland voter will still have a vote, which will contribute to results of the overall popular vote. Maryland is empowering not just each and every Marylander to have their vote mean something, but the rest of the country as well.

No, it is not. It is left wing political engineering to devalue (disenfranchise) the Maryland electorate.

How shameful.

 

[Inthemiddle]

No, it is not. It is left wing political engineering to devalue (disenfranchise) the Maryland electorate.

No, it is not. The drive to transition the Presidential election into a popular vote has been around for decades. Unlike the bullshit that you and a few others are trying to imply, it's not a novel idea that suddenly popped up out of fear that Obama might lose. And it's rarely been an issue that has been at all partisan, except apparently for the hacks on this board. There has been plenty of criticism of the EC system for years and years and years, from both sides of the aisle.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Hence the made up conservative term, "Classical Liberals"..

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, it is not. It is left wing political engineering to devalue (disenfranchise) the Maryland electorate.

No, it is not. The drive to transition the Presidential election into a popular vote has been around for decades. Unlike the bullshit that you and a few others are trying to imply, it's not a novel idea that suddenly popped up out of fear that Obama might lose. And it's rarely been an issue that has been at all partisan, except apparently for the hacks on this board. There has been plenty of criticism of the EC system for years and years and years, from both sides of the aisle.

Stay on track, please.

I have not said it is a novel idea. That is your mistatement.

The issue is partisan because it ignores the will of the electorate.

Your wordage is hack, not ours.

Yes, I agree the EC has been incorrectly analyzed and poor solutions put out there.

 

[Dragon]

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?

No, that has nothing to do with it. In fact, if you look at the history of presidential elections, the winner of the popular vote has also won the electoral college on all but two occasions. So most of the time, the electoral outcome would be unchanged.

I am on record as saying that as impressive as the Constitution was in balancing the competing interests of the time and building a nation, it is not Holy Writ, and we should feel free to improve on it. I am also on record as disagreeing with the distrust many of the Founding Fathers felt for democracy, and with the views of it held by some conservatives here. Read the e-pamphlet linked in my signature, which I wrote, if you like.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The issue is partisan because it ignores the will of the electorate.

And you know the will of the Maryland electorate? No, of course you don't. Most people here fully support the law. That's why you are indeed a hack. You're talking about things that you have no idea about, simply based on your blind determination to make Democrats sound bad. You can't be bothered with pesky things like reality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The issue is partisan because it ignores the will of the electorate.

And you know the will of the Maryland electorate? No, of course you don't. Most people here fully support the law. That's why you are indeed a hack. You're talking about things that you have no idea about, simply based on your blind determination to make Democrats sound bad. You can't be bothered with pesky things like reality.

I know that if the will of the Maryland people is to cast a vote for X candidate and then the state awards that vote to Y, then, I know MD is ignoring the will of the people.

Dems, ipso facto, are not bad. Neither are Pubs. But this issue is bad.

 

[Listening]

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

Just the kind of thinking the founders wanted to stay away from.

Pure democracy on a large scale (like more than a couple thousand people) does not work so well.

Seems like novel would be you actually understanding the issue.

 

[DiamondDave]

The issue is partisan because it ignores the will of the electorate.

And you know the will of the Maryland electorate? No, of course you don't. Most people here fully support the law. That's why you are indeed a hack. You're talking about things that you have no idea about, simply based on your blind determination to make Democrats sound bad. You can't be bothered with pesky things like reality.

I know that if the will of the Maryland people is to cast a vote for X candidate and then the state awards that vote to Y, then, I know MD is ignoring the will of the people.

Dems, ipso facto, are not bad. Neither are Pubs. But this issue is bad.

For once... and I am biting my tongue saying this... but I agree with you

 

[Againsheila]

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?

No, that has nothing to do with it. In fact, if you look at the history of presidential elections, the winner of the popular vote has also won the electoral college on all but two occasions. So most of the time, the electoral outcome would be unchanged.

I am on record as saying that as impressive as the Constitution was in balancing the competing interests of the time and building a nation, it is not Holy Writ, and we should feel free to improve on it. I am also on record as disagreeing with the distrust many of the Founding Fathers felt for democracy, and with the views of it held by some conservatives here. Read the e-pamphlet linked in my signature, which I wrote, if you like.

IMO, they should change the electoral college and give each state ONE vote. That way all candidates will have to campaign in ALL states, not just the most populous ones.

I do not believe that states with fewer people should be ignored by the highest office in the land. Then again, I'm not sure that any state has actually benefitted from our federal government recently. I'm fully in favor of sucedeing, especially since our federal government's main job is to protect our borders and they not only refuse to do that, they also refuse to allow the states to protect their borders.

 

[Listening]

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?

No, that has nothing to do with it. In fact, if you look at the history of presidential elections, the winner of the popular vote has also won the electoral college on all but two occasions. So most of the time, the electoral outcome would be unchanged.

I am on record as saying that as impressive as the Constitution was in balancing the competing interests of the time and building a nation, it is not Holy Writ, and we should feel free to improve on it. I am also on record as disagreeing with the distrust many of the Founding Fathers felt for democracy, and with the views of it held by some conservatives here. Read the e-pamphlet linked in my signature, which I wrote, if you like.

In fact, I would rather dissolve the union before I would support such a notion.

In fact, you claims about fears being unwarrented essentially is saying the feelings of the Constituional Convention were not valid.

Sorry....fail.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And you know the will of the Maryland electorate? No, of course you don't. Most people here fully support the law. That's why you are indeed a hack. You're talking about things that you have no idea about, simply based on your blind determination to make Democrats sound bad. You can't be bothered with pesky things like reality.

I know that if the will of the Maryland people is to cast a vote for X candidate and then the state awards that vote to Y, then, I know MD is ignoring the will of the people.

Dems, ipso facto, are not bad. Neither are Pubs. But this issue is bad.

For once... and I am biting my tongue saying this... but I agree with you

As well you should! Thanks, DD.

 

[Listening]

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?

No, that has nothing to do with it. In fact, if you look at the history of presidential elections, the winner of the popular vote has also won the electoral college on all but two occasions. So most of the time, the electoral outcome would be unchanged.

I am on record as saying that as impressive as the Constitution was in balancing the competing interests of the time and building a nation, it is not Holy Writ, and we should feel free to improve on it. I am also on record as disagreeing with the distrust many of the Founding Fathers felt for democracy, and with the views of it held by some conservatives here. Read the e-pamphlet linked in my signature, which I wrote, if you like.

IMO, they should change the electoral college and give each state ONE vote. That way all candidates will have to campaign in ALL states, not just the most populous ones.

I do not believe that states with fewer people should be ignored by the highest office in the land. Then again, I'm not sure that any state has actually benefitted from our federal government recently. I'm fully in favor of sucedeing, especially since our federal government's main job is to protect our borders and they not only refuse to do that, they also refuse to allow the states to protect their borders.

In fact, I have seen proposals where the electoral college is a combination of state and population representation.

I liked some of what I read becasue it gave states like S.D. a little more clout compared to say CA.

It is formula that would have be satisfied and it would be possible for there to be stand-offs. And additional elections.

But the notion that Maryland is putting forth is simply stupid.

Its like saying we'll vote after the vote.