MD to drop out of Electoral College?

[grunt11b]

It was designed that way purposely to give the smaller states a little more influence in the election so the people in those rural areas wouldn't be completely dominated by the urbanites in every national election.

(I thought I fixed your avatar for you)

Pats are still the most successful team of the new century.

While statistics say that is true, I have noticed they have not won another superbowl since they got caught stealing signals.

 

[grunt11b]

Imagine having to do a nationwide recount if the vote count is within a million votes. That would get real interesting.

And with how democrats love those absentee ballots, you can only imagine which side would come out on top "See Lisa Murkowski and harry reid 2010 for example". Yes I know murkowski wasa republican, but she was a rino who sided with democrats the whole way.

 

[grunt11b]

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.

It could backfire on them for sure, but I think they know something we dont for them to be attempting this.

 

[grunt11b]

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!

And dangerous for a nation our size.

Exactly, it;s like the whole "Two wolves and one lamb sitting at a table deciding what to have for dinner" thing.

 

[Oldstyle]

So basically, progressives want to change a system that has worked well for several hundred years...because they think they might lose a race because of the electoral college? The Founding Fathers were actually rather intelligent about how they set up our governing system. The same reasons they saw the wisdom of not allowing big States to dominate small ones still exist. So change things at your own peril, Kiddies. Just remember that it's usually harder to get a genie back in the bottle than it is to let one free.

On the other hand, why should my vote for president have less impact because I live in large state?

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.

 

[grunt11b]

Imagine having to do a nationwide recount if the vote count is within a million votes. That would get real interesting.

If by interesting you mean there will be violence on the streets and no one accepting the election results as accurate, you are completely correct.

Which is exactly what Obama and the saul olinsky types want. Van Jones is frothing at the mouth right now at the idea.

 

[grunt11b]

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.

HAHA!!

 

[grunt11b]

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.

So by nearly four years ago you mean it was a democrat scheme to be put in place incase they risk losing it all?

 

[American Horse]

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?

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

 

[Flopper]

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.

It could backfire on them for sure, but I think they know something we dont for them to be attempting this.

However, since Maryland's new law will go into effect only if enough states pass similar laws to total 270 electoral votes it shouldn't be a problem. In effect, this scheme transforms the electoral college system into a popular vote because the other states would be doing the same thing that Maryland is doing. I don't know if this could be pulled off, but it's a cleaver way of changing to a popular without amending the Constitution.

 

[Jebril]

People could just do a similar process to the Primaries/Caucuses where delegates are split up but hey....

 

[Meister]

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.

It could backfire on them for sure, but I think they know something we dont for them to be attempting this.

However, since Maryland's new law will go into effect only if enough states pass similar laws to total 270 electoral votes it shouldn't be a problem. In effect, this scheme transforms the electoral college system into a popular vote because the other states would be doing the same thing that Maryland is doing. I don't know if this could be pulled off, but it's a cleaver way of changing to a popular without amending the Constitution.

Yes, being 'clever' is the way to sidestep the constitution....that's the way that the left should get the job done.

 

[uscitizen]

Disenfranchised voters?
What about HI?

 

[asaratis]

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?

You must be kidding? I think the reason has been explained several times in this thread. It is also explained in textbooks for elementary school children in many state's public education systems.

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

Stop trying to change the Constitution!

The Electoral College - Origin and History

Read that link in its entirety before posting here again. Let me know what you think of it....and explain why you might still feel the way you do.

 

[Vast LWC]

[I am certain that they did because they knew already how corrupt the major population centers already were and would likely get worse.

The FF did not want the big cities to steal elections through massive uncontroled voter fraud.

Right now the Daleys of Chicago can only rig the Illinois vote but getting rid of the Electoral College makdes it possible for them to steal the whole shebang.

That's pretty much the most ridiculous re-writing of the intent of the Founding Fathers that I have ever heard. Thanks for the laugh though.

 

[Vast LWC]

I believe they did. In 1790, Virginia had 21 times the population of Tennessee.

Which would be one of the reasons Tennessee wasn't a state in 1790...

It's population had increased quite a bit by the time it did become a state, 6 years later, with the expectation that it would keep increasing at a rapid pace.

 

[Vast LWC]

>12 to one as of the first census in 1790. By your date of 1787 Tennessee has become the 16th state and the population ratio was 21:1 (VA vs TN)

And, again, Tennessee wasn't a state in 1787. So it had no representation at all.

 

[jillian]

Thats what the Founders thought. History demonstrates they were correct in their analysis.

The Founders didn't have state vs state population ratios of 67:1 (California/Wyoming).

Which means, by the way, that every voter in Montana has 3 times as much representation in both Congress and the Electoral College, as California Voters.

I very much doubt the Founding fathers had that in mind at all.

I am certain that they did because they knew already how corrupt the major population centers already were and would likely get worse.

The FF did not want the big cities to steal elections through massive uncontroled voter fraud.

Right now the Daleys of Chicago can only rig the Illinois vote but getting rid of the Electoral College makdes it possible for them to steal the whole shebang.

are you an idiot?

i know... rhetorical question.

the founders wanted to protect landed gentry.

now run along

 

[Vast LWC]

See, when you have a total misinformation about our Founding, when you're a complete ******* ignoramus you can say things like, "I very much doubt the Founding fathers had that in mind at all"

See, I was just going to go and correct their glaring error, but then some stupid jackass like Frank has to go and pile on, only to make himself look like a ******* moron.

Way to go Frank!

 

[Vast LWC]

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

Since when was the last time someone on the left abided by that old thing?

Since it's not unconstitutional, I'd say this would be an example of such a time...