States Seek to Overturn Electoral College

[Nickdfresh]

Delegates approve popular-vote bill
Measure would be a step toward direct presidential elections
By Jennifer Skalka
Sun reporter (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.electoral03apr03,0,4895794.story?coll=bal-local-headlines)
Originally published April 3, 2007
The House of Delegates approved a proposal yesterday that could make Maryland the first state in the nation to award its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote in presidential elections.

The bill commits Maryland to a national compact that would go into effect only after states with electoral votes representing a national majority - the 270 required to win the presidency - also sign on. As such, it would likely not affect how the state's votes are counted in the 2008 contest - and could never be implemented if other states fail to approve similar measures.

Advertisement
The final House vote was 85 to 54; the Senate passed the bill last week. Gov. Martin O'Malley has promised to sign it.

"We are organizing an insurrection of the spectator states who have been completely sidelined and ignored in presidential elections," said Sen. Jamie Raskin, a Montgomery County Democrat and the proposal's lead Senate sponsor.

The measure represents a nascent national grass-roots effort for the direct election of the president, a move to change the dynamics of a contest that has become focused on battleground states with big electoral kitties - such as Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Proponents of the plan say it could prevent a repeat of the 2000 election, in which George W. Bush lost the national popular vote but won the Electoral College when Florida was declared for the Republican over Democrat Al Gore.

In contrast, if the proposed system had been in place in 2004, Maryland's electoral votes would have gone to Bush, who won the national popular vote, even though Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry won the state decisively.

Supporters also argued yesterday during extensive House debate that the plan would make Maryland a player in national contests, drawing candidates and campaign cash to the state. Maryland, which tilts reliably Democratic during presidential races and offers the victor a scant 10 electoral votes, is not a frequent stop along the campaign trail for White House hopefuls.

But opponents said the plan would complicate an effective system and violates the Constitution and the Founding Fathers' intentions in crafting the Electoral College. They argued that the General Assembly was acting in haste and without fully studying the impact of such an enormous change.

"To fix a problem with something that has even more glaring flaws to me is ill-advised," said Del. Anthony J. O'Donnell, the House minority leader and a Republican from Southern Maryland.

Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University, said Maryland's proposal is a "bad idea" that could thwart grass-roots activism and coalition-building during presidential contests.

The U.S. Constitution allows states to determine how they pick electors. In most states, including Maryland, political parties nominate a slate of electors to represent the party's candidate. The slate representing the winner's party ultimately casts Maryland's electoral votes.

Other states have attempted to join the proposed compact. Last year, the California Assembly approved membership in a popular-vote plan, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it.

The plan's detractors find another fault with Maryland's plan: that a tight contest would require a national recount, a prospect that makes the cumbersome 2000 recount in Florida seem modest by comparison.

"If we had a seven-week disaster in Florida over 500 votes that got resolved by the Supreme Court, think if we had to have a recount of the entire nation, which is what we would be at if we had a direct election," Gans said.

But supporters see the flip side, that the influence of one state over the rest of the country would be mitigated.

"This bill will prevent the nightmare scenario of a repeat of the 2000 presidential election when 500 votes in Florida settled the election in the entire country despite a popular majority for Vice President Gore," Raskin said.

While Del. Jon S. Cardin, a Baltimore County Democrat who lobbied for the bill yesterday, said that "the current system doesn't treat every vote equally," Del. Luiz R.S. Simmons argued that the Electoral College offers minorities stronger representation. Simmons, a Montgomery County Democrat, voted against the bill, saying that Jews in New York City, Mormons in Utah, Cubans in Florida and Christian fundamentalists across the country, among others, could be marginalized by the national popular-vote bill.

Representatives from the Legislative Black Caucus said, however, said that their group backs the bill.

Other than 2000, the country sent presidents to the White House three times without the majority of the popular vote: 1824, 1876 and 1888.

jennifer.skalka@baltsun.com
Sun reporter Melissa Harris contributed to this article

[knuckleboner]

i really don't like this plan.

mind you, i don't like the electoral college.


but technically, this action FURTHER removes maryland voters from a direct eletion of the president.


you want out of the electoral college? propose an amendment.

[Little Texan]

The Electoral College system has long outlived its usefulness and should be abolished. I never fucking understood why the popular vote, alone, doesn't decide elections. Seems pretty damn stupid to me. That's why so many people have the notion that their vote doesn't count.

[FORD]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
i really don't like this plan.

mind you, i don't like the electoral college.


but technically, this action FURTHER removes maryland voters from a direct eletion of the president.


you want out of the electoral college? propose an amendment.

I'd have to agree. The electoral college doesn't need to be changed, it needs to be eliminated.

But not before the electro-fraud machines are gone.

[Combat Ready]

Originally posted by Little Texan
The Electoral College system has long outlived its usefulness and should be abolished. I never fucking understood why the popular vote, alone, doesn't decide elections. Seems pretty damn stupid to me. That's why so many people have the notion that their vote doesn't count.


Dunno....Maybe because the USA is governed as a Republic and not a Democracy? Dumbass! WTF?

[Combat Ready]

Originally posted by FORD
I'd have to agree. The electoral college doesn't need to be changed, it needs to be eliminated.

But not before the electro-fraud machines are gone.


Check this out:

http://www.voidspace.org.uk/gallery/silly/big_cup_of_STFU.jpg

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Combat Ready
Dunno....Maybe because the USA is governed as a Republic and not a Democracy? Dumbass! WTF?

Dumbass? Actually fucktard, it's democracy and republic. The terms are not capitalized.

And the two are not mutually exclusive. The US is not a "direct democracy," but the fact that we occasionally have elections makes it a democracy nonetheless...

Maybe you should retake 11th grade gov't, or better yet, a political science 101 course at your local community college, asshole...

[Combat Ready]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Dumbass? Actually fucktard, it's democracy and republic. The terms are not capitalized.

And the two are not mutually exclusive. The US is not a "direct democracy," but the fact that we occasionally have elections makes it a democracy nonetheless...

Maybe you should retake 11th grade gov't, or better yet, a political science 101 course at your local community college, asshole...


And to the Republic, for which it stands....Ah-----nevermind! Not like you will salute the Flag anytime soon---- anyway......No prob----All good! Happy Easter to Ya....NickD!. You got style!

[Sgt Schultz]

The following was written by John Samples of the Cato Institute.

"James Madison’s famous Federalist No. 10 makes clear that the Founders fashioned a republic, not a pure democracy. To be sure, they knew that the consent of the governed was the ultimate basis of government, but the Founders denied that such consent could be reduced to simple majority or plurality rule. In fact, nothing could be more alien to the spirit of American constitutionalism than equating democracy will the direct, unrefined will of the people.

Recall the ways our constitution puts limits on any unchecked power, including the arbitrary will of the people. Power at the national level is divided among the three branches, each reflecting a different constituency. Power is divided yet again between the national government and the states. Madison noted that these twofold divisions -- the separation of powers and federalism -- provided a “double security” for the rights of the people.

What about the democratic principle of one person, one vote? Isn’t that principle essential to our form of government? The Founders’ handiwork says otherwise. Neither the Senate, nor the Supreme Court, nor the president is elected on the basis of one person, one vote. That’s why a state like Montana, with 883,000 residents, gets the same number of Senators as California, with 33 million people. Consistency would require that if we abolish the Electoral College, we rid ourselves of the Senate as well. Are we ready to do that?

The filtering of the popular will through the Electoral College is an affirmation, rather than a betrayal, of the American republic. Doing away with the Electoral College would breach our fidelity to the spirit of the Constitution, a document expressly written to thwart the excesses of majoritarianism. Nonetheless, such fidelity will strike some as blind adherence to the past. For those skeptics, I would point out two other advantages the Electoral College offers.

First, we must keep in mind the likely effects of direct popular election of the president. We would probably see elections dominated by the most populous regions of the country or by several large metropolitan areas. In the 2000 election, for example, Vice President Gore could have put together a plurality or majority in the Northeast, parts of the Midwest, and California.

The victims in such elections would be those regions too sparsely populated to merit the attention of presidential candidates. Pure democrats would hardly regret that diminished status, but I wonder if a large and diverse nation should write off whole parts of its territory. We should keep in mind the regional conflicts that have plagued large and diverse nations like India, China, and Russia. The Electoral College is a good antidote to the poison of regionalism because it forces presidential candidates to seek support throughout the nation. By making sure no state will be left behind, it provides a measure of coherence to our nation.

Second, the Electoral College makes sure that the states count in presidential elections. As such, it is an important part of our federalist system -- a system worth preserving. Historically, federalism is central to our grand constitutional effort to restrain power, but even in our own time we have found that devolving power to the states leads to important policy innovations (welfare reform).

If the Founders had wished to create a pure democracy, they would have done so. Those who now wish to do away with the Electoral College are welcome to amend the Constitution, but if they succeed, they will be taking America further away from its roots as a constitutional republic."

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
The following was written by John Samples of the Cato Institute.

"
First, we must keep in mind the likely effects of direct popular election of the president. We would probably see elections dominated by the most populous regions of the country or by several large metropolitan areas.



Second, the Electoral College makes sure that the states count in presidential elections.


this is all true.


however, the electoral college ALSO means that states that are strongly likely to go one way or the other never get any attention from the candidates from the opposition. do you think republicans ever campaign in DC, new york, etc.? do they really care about getting an extra 10,000 votes there? losing 54-46 is the same as losing 56-44. which is to say, 100-0.


that's why we always talk about states in play during the presidential race. the democratic candidates don't really care what happens in montana.

the swing states are the ones that end up mattering.


so the question is: would we rather concentrate larger responsibility to a few swing states, or a few highly populated areas? personally, when both have drawbacks, i'd rather see the popular vote.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
The following was written by John Samples of the Cato Institute.

"James Madison’s famous Federalist No. 10 makes clear that the Founders fashioned a republic, not a pure democracy. To be sure, they knew that the consent of the governed was the ultimate basis of government, but the Founders denied that such consent could be reduced to simple majority or plurality rule. In fact, nothing could be more alien to the spirit of American constitutionalism than equating democracy will the direct, unrefined will of the people.

Recall the ways our constitution puts limits on any unchecked power, including the arbitrary will of the people. Power at the national level is divided among the three branches, each reflecting a different constituency. Power is divided yet again between the national government and the states. Madison noted that these twofold divisions -- the separation of powers and federalism -- provided a “double security” for the rights of the people.

What about the democratic principle of one person, one vote? Isn’t that principle essential to our form of government? The Founders’ handiwork says otherwise. Neither the Senate, nor the Supreme Court, nor the president is elected on the basis of one person, one vote. That’s why a state like Montana, with 883,000 residents, gets the same number of Senators as California, with 33 million people. Consistency would require that if we abolish the Electoral College, we rid ourselves of the Senate as well. Are we ready to do that?

The filtering of the popular will through the Electoral College is an affirmation, rather than a betrayal, of the American republic. Doing away with the Electoral College would breach our fidelity to the spirit of the Constitution, a document expressly written to thwart the excesses of majoritarianism. Nonetheless, such fidelity will strike some as blind adherence to the past. For those skeptics, I would point out two other advantages the Electoral College offers.

First, we must keep in mind the likely effects of direct popular election of the president. We would probably see elections dominated by the most populous regions of the country or by several large metropolitan areas. In the 2000 election, for example, Vice President Gore could have put together a plurality or majority in the Northeast, parts of the Midwest, and California.

The victims in such elections would be those regions too sparsely populated to merit the attention of presidential candidates. Pure democrats would hardly regret that diminished status, but I wonder if a large and diverse nation should write off whole parts of its territory. We should keep in mind the regional conflicts that have plagued large and diverse nations like India, China, and Russia. The Electoral College is a good antidote to the poison of regionalism because it forces presidential candidates to seek support throughout the nation. By making sure no state will be left behind, it provides a measure of coherence to our nation.

Second, the Electoral College makes sure that the states count in presidential elections. As such, it is an important part of our federalist system -- a system worth preserving. Historically, federalism is central to our grand constitutional effort to restrain power, but even in our own time we have found that devolving power to the states leads to important policy innovations (welfare reform).

If the Founders had wished to create a pure democracy, they would have done so. Those who now wish to do away with the Electoral College are welcome to amend the Constitution, but if they succeed, they will be taking America further away from its roots as a constitutional republic."

Yeah, it's not a democracy because some CATO Institute twat says so! All while invoking James Madison, but never actually quoting him, no less...

Lem'me guess, this article is dated about Nov. 2000?

We;re still a democracy, sort of, since we have elections

[Jesus Christ]

Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's.

And unto the people, give the vote. Not the states or the parties.

[FORD]

The last two so-called presidential "elections" are all the evidence we need of why the electoral college system is wrong.

One state should not hold all the power in a fucking election. Especially one where the governor is the brother of one of the candidates.

And that's besides the fact that said brother and his whore of a secretary of state had already rigged the contest before hand with their ethnic cleansing database.

[studly hungwell]

Simple fix...every state has the same amount of electoral votes. Every state gets the same numbver of Senators don't they? I still don't know why some people get fixated on Florida....If Gore would have won his home state, Florida would not have been a factor. Isn't a presidential candidate expected to win their home state?