MD to drop out of Electoral College?

[Vast LWC]

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

Are the residents of the District of Columbia not taxpaying residents of the United States of America? Do they not have the right to representation?

We know that the residents of DC have been asking to have their status changed for some time now, is it your opinion that laws and zoning of this nature cannot be changed? That they are set in stone?

Certainly slavery laws were not set in stone. Slavery was abolished some time ago. Was that something that just shouldn't have happened in your mind too?

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.

So, you feel that the only way American citizens can be effectively represented is by counting some votes multiple times, making some sort of, I don't know, 3/5ths compromise? or in this case a 1/3rd compromise? Hmm, why does that sound so familiar?

 

[Vast LWC]

And so, now CrusaderFrank is telling me that I'm wrong: apparently Tennessee was actually a state in 1787, and then proceeded to neg rep me for being wrong.

Way to go Frank. You asshole.

 

[Dragon]

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

I believe the technical term for that is "cutting off your nose to spite your face." It's remarkable (and remarkably revealing) how much conservatives fear democracy.

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

Depends on what you mean by "valid." If you mean, they were a bunch of rich guys afraid that too much democracy would deprive them of their privileges, and wanting to keep control of the government -- then yes, those fears were valid, at least in the sense of being fact-based.

If you mean, they were fears that most people today should share -- then no. They were not valid.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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's unconstitutional? State's have the right to choose delegates in any manner they see fit.

Article 1 Section 10 Clause 3.

 

[Dragon]

Article 1 Section 10 Clause 3.

Are you considering this an agreement or compact with another state? That's really stretching the meaning of that phrase. I don't think that argument would hold up in court.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Article 1 Section 10 Clause 3.

Are you considering this an agreement or compact with another state? That's really stretching the meaning of that phrase. I don't think that argument would hold up in court.

Virginia v Tennessee held that Congress did not have to approve agreements that had no tendency to increase the political powers of the states or to encroach on the supremacy of the national government. Do you honestly think this agreement does not increase the political power of larger states? Additionally, the Voting Rights Act prohibits any action that would tend to disenfranchise minority voters. Since the majority of voters in this country are not a minority it could easily be argued that awarding the electoral college based on votes in mostly white states would disenfranchise minority voters.

 

[Vast LWC]

Article 1 Section 10 Clause 3.

Are you considering this an agreement or compact with another state? That's really stretching the meaning of that phrase. I don't think that argument would hold up in court.

Was just about to say the same thing. That clause does not apply here.

 

[Vast LWC]

Virginia v Tennessee held that Congress did not have to approve agreements that had no tendency to increase the political powers of the states or to encroach on the supremacy of the national government. Do you honestly think this agreement does not increase the political power of larger states? Additionally, the Voting Rights Act prohibits any action that would tend to disenfranchise minority voters. Since the majority of voters in this country are not a minority it could easily be argued that awarding the electoral college based on votes in mostly white states would disenfranchise minority voters.

Since the majority of minority voters live in large population states, the opposite would in fact be true.

Minority voters are currently disenfranchised by the electoral college, and would be less disenfranchised by a majority vote.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The issues is not minority voters. The issue is big state control. Hamilton and Madison argued for control of power by empowering the smaller states through the electoral college. Nothing in more than four pages has given me reason here to decide they were wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Virginia v Tennessee held that Congress did not have to approve agreements that had no tendency to increase the political powers of the states or to encroach on the supremacy of the national government. Do you honestly think this agreement does not increase the political power of larger states? Additionally, the Voting Rights Act prohibits any action that would tend to disenfranchise minority voters. Since the majority of voters in this country are not a minority it could easily be argued that awarding the electoral college based on votes in mostly white states would disenfranchise minority voters.

Since the majority of minority voters live in large population states, the opposite would in fact be true.

Minority voters are currently disenfranchised by the electoral college, and would be less disenfranchised by a majority vote.

It would disenfranchise the minorities in the Southern states.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The issues is not minority voters. The issue is big state control. Hamilton and Madison argued for control of power by empowering the smaller states through the electoral college. Nothing in more than four pages has given me reason here to decide they were wrong.

I know what the issues are, but it would violate federal law and sovereignty. Congress would have to approve it.

 

[Vast LWC]

The issues is not minority voters. The issue is big state control. Hamilton and Madison argued for control of power by empowering the smaller states through the electoral college. Nothing in more than four pages has given me reason here to decide they were wrong.

I know that the issue is not minority voters, I was simply responding to Quantum's post.

 

[Vast LWC]

It would disenfranchise the minorities in the Southern states.

Last I looked, the southern states with large minority communities had rather large populations.

Texas is #2, Florida is #4, Georgia is #9, NC is #10, Virginia is #12

 

[JakeStarkey]

The issues is not minority voters. The issue is big state control. Hamilton and Madison argued for control of power by empowering the smaller states through the electoral college. Nothing in more than four pages has given me reason here to decide they were wrong.

I know what the issues are, but it would violate federal law and sovereignty. Congress would have to approve it.

Perhaps so, but I am not sure a Roberts SCOTUS would agree.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It would disenfranchise the minorities in the Southern states.

Last I looked, the southern states with large minority communities had rather large populations.

Texas is #2, Florida is #4, Georgia is #9, NC is #10, Virginia is #12

Texas cannot change its election laws without federal approval, neither can Florida, because idiots think that because they did bad things in the past they will do bad things now. But thanks for making my point for me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The issues is not minority voters. The issue is big state control. Hamilton and Madison argued for control of power by empowering the smaller states through the electoral college. Nothing in more than four pages has given me reason here to decide they were wrong.

I know what the issues are, but it would violate federal law and sovereignty. Congress would have to approve it.

Perhaps so, but I am not sure a Roberts SCOTUS would agree.

You think they would ignore federal supremacy and side with the states over the feds?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

Wow, and it's the Republicans who make racist comments? Actually the electoral college was designed to create a balance between the rural states with those of more metropolitian densely populated states. Each individual vote is a "pledge" you give to the electorals to cast their vote towards the candidate you selected, the Presidential candidate that receives the "popular vote" in that state receives the award of all the pledged votes of that states electors. It's a very fair system of representation that puts farm states on the same footing as major metropolitian states. To change the system, as Maryland suggests, can only be achieved through ammending the United States Constitution. The Founders were very specific in outlining how any changes or additional Ammendments to the Constitution are to be performed, states can't "change the rules" because they don't like how a particular outcome is attained.

The proposal Maryland suggests would actually create more of an IMbalance, where as larger more populated states would carry a greater weight in the decision of representation for President. Citizens of smaller or less populated states would consider themselves downgraded as being viewed under more of a "second class" status, and not treated with the same "fair" representation as other more populated regional states.

Why do Democrats always desire to look for ways to change the results, when they don't like how a particular outcome goes against what THEY'D much rather "prefer" to see for themselves. California's recent judicial activism is another example of such a change, as well as Texas with their political map redistricting "complaints".

 

[JakeStarkey]

I know what the issues are, but it would violate federal law and sovereignty. Congress would have to approve it.

Perhaps so, but I am not sure a Roberts SCOTUS would agree.

You think they would ignore federal supremacy and side with the states over the feds?

I don't know, and neither do you.

 

[Vast LWC]

Texas cannot change its election laws without federal approval, neither can Florida, because idiots think that because they did bad things in the past they will do bad things now. But thanks for making my point for me.

That is false. Unless you mean they're not allowed to make election laws that are considered racist in nature.

Which this specifically would not be.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Texas cannot change its election laws without federal approval, neither can Florida, because idiots think that because they did bad things in the past they will do bad things now. But thanks for making my point for me.

That is false. Unless you mean they're not allowed to make election laws that are considered racist in nature.

Which this specifically would not be.

Read the law, they need to get approval from the DOJ before they change anything.