Maryland Abolishes The Electoral College System
Maryland officially became the first state on Tuesday to approve a plan to give its electoral votes for president to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the candidate chosen by state voters.
Gov. Martin O’Malley, a Democrat, signed the measure into law, one day after the state’s General Assembly adjourned.
The measure would award Maryland’s 10 electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. The plan would only take effect if states representing a majority of the nation’s 538 electoral votes decided to make the same change.
State Sen. Jamie Raskin, a law professor and sponsor of the idea, said Maryland is largely ignored by presidential candidates during campaigns, because they assume the Democratic state will vote for the Democratic candidate.
Raskin, a Democrat, said he hoped Maryland’s support for the idea will start a national discussion and “kick off an insurrection among spectator states ” the states that are completely bypassed and sidelined” during presidential campaigns.
“Going by the national popular vote will reawaken politics in every part of the country,” Raskin said.
Other states are considering the change to avoid an election in which a candidate wins the national popular vote but loses in the Electoral College, as in 2000 when Democrat Al Gore lost to George W. Bush.
Hawaii’s legislature recently passed a similar measure, sending it to Republican Gov. Linda Lingle. California lawmakers adopted the measure last year, but Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it.
National Popular Vote, a group that supports the change, said there are legislative sponsors for the idea in 47 states. Ryan O’Donnell, a spokesman for the group, described O’Malley’s decision to sign the legislation as “an open invitation” for other states to join Maryland.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com …
April 10, 2007 - 08:29 PM on April 10th, 2007
And that’s not all. Sorry Peejz I can’t link this. It comes in an email from the State Republican party. It appears we are also going to allow convicted felons to vote as well among other things. I knew O’Malley was corrupt but this just makes my blood boil.
The House Republicans asked Governor Martin O’Malley to oppose and veto four pieces of legislation.
April 10, 2007 - 08:44 PM on April 10th, 2007
Thanks for the info Bon Bon. This is appalling any way you look at it!
….I edited to put it into quotes so as to signify that it came from another source!
April 10, 2007 - 08:57 PM on April 10th, 2007
Thanks Peejz….I thought I had done that but sometimes my computer doesn’t do what I want it to do when I post on this site. It’s probably my lack of computer savvy. Thanks again. Needless to say I’m horrified over this.
April 10, 2007 - 09:21 PM on April 10th, 2007
I can’t say it often enough. The Democrat party is corrupt through and through. Many people are mentally ill to support that party.
I got an email video where Penn and Teller get 100s of people to sign a petition to ban water. As you can tell from the video, they were mainly clueless liberal Democrats.
April 10, 2007 - 10:22 PM on April 10th, 2007
The really sad part is that there just aren’t enough Republicans in the state to veto these things. Ever since Agnew disgraced us we have been under democrat rule. It’s almost like living under a dictatorship. Ehrlich and Steele were good and got some things done but the opposition to them even made them somewhat ineffective. So sad.:cry:
And I have to ask. If the popular vote were to take hold rather than the electoral vote don’t they think that could affect them more than they might want. Remember Ronald Reagan.
April 10, 2007 - 10:29 PM on April 10th, 2007
Republicans historically stood up for the principles of majority rule and one-person, one-vote. Nixon, Ford, Dole, George HW Bush and many more backed a national popular vote for president.
Forget about 2000. This is about the future and having elections where all our participation is meaningful.
April 10, 2007 - 10:40 PM on April 10th, 2007
Todd, you and other Democrat big mouths had better get this through your corrupt heads, You have to amend the Constitution to change the way the President is elected.
MD is the same racist state that did not censure the Democrat party for allowing its workers, activists, and office holders for making racist slurs against Steele.
April 11, 2007 - 03:37 AM on April 11th, 2007
6- There is a reason that we have the EC. Large states like NY and CA will decide elections if not for the EC.
And those that have publically called for it are : Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFL-CIO
April 11, 2007 - 05:02 AM on April 11th, 2007
Large states like NY and CA will decide elections if not for the EC.
A “large state” is nothing outside of the large number of people that make it up. Why is the right so terrified of each citizen’s vote counting equally?
You have to amend the Constitution to change the way the President is elected.
So amend it. It’s been amended in the past.
April 11, 2007 - 05:43 AM on April 11th, 2007
AKD, if that were so simple, why are the Democrats so desperate to circumvent the amendment process?? Is it because they couldn’t get the ERA ratified?
Democrats = Culture of Corruption and ballot box stuffing.
April 11, 2007 - 05:57 AM on April 11th, 2007
“A “large state”is nothing outside of the large number of people that make it up. Why is the right so terrified of each citizen’s vote counting equally?”
What a moron, if you had a clue you would understand that in the system they are proposing the people in small states, such as Maryland, wouldn’t matter. That’s what is so nice about the electoral system each state matters in an election, not just the biggest. This is hilarious, the idiot that came up with this says it’s because his state was getting ignored in elections. Well bright boy way to go, if this were to ever pass your state would be completely meaningless. The needs of your state would be ignored in favor of what California wants. No candidate would waste time in Maryland when only the most populous states get you elected. I thought Michigan politicians were dumb crying about a deficit they can’t fix then the next day proposing a slew of new spending, but this is just absurd.
April 11, 2007 - 09:22 AM on April 11th, 2007
I guess I never understood the actual implementation of an Electoral College, other than to undermine the PEOPLES popular vote.
To me, it is more of a discouraging factor to the voters. I have always been told that MY vote counts, but does it really when it can so easily be discounted?
If the majority of people vote for a leader, shouldn’t that individual become leader? Is that not the fundamentals of Democracy?
I suppose GWB wouldn’t have been president in 2000 if the popular vote was considered. I mean as far as the PEOPLE are concerned, he did LOSE by over a half a million votes.
I wonder how this discouraging process wasn’t challenged at an earlier date.
April 11, 2007 - 09:28 AM on April 11th, 2007
12, Ryan, you evidently flunked civics. This system was in place from day one of this country. It worked well for over 200 years. Now, sore losers like you come up with this whine. Maybe you want to look at Nixon-Kennedy’s race of 1960 when the Democrats stole Illinois’ Electoral votes by stuffing the ballot boxes in Chicago.
Now, Ryan, is it the people’s will when you Democrats make up fake votes to win an election??
April 11, 2007 - 09:44 AM on April 11th, 2007
12. Of course you realize that it was the small states that demanded equity within the voting system and this was what our forefathers came up with. The small states we are talking about are Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut and all those New England states. All the liberal states.
April 11, 2007 - 12:32 PM on April 11th, 2007
When the Democrites think it will help them politically, they want to throw out a carefully-designed 200 yr-old rule. When they think it helps them politically, they’ll scream to get it back.
screw ‘em.
April 11, 2007 - 12:44 PM on April 11th, 2007
Yeah- this is a bqad move.
I am of the opinion that the Founding Fathers were light years ahead of anyone when it comes to comprehending asnd developing a working system of governement.
They still are light years ahead of anyone today- so let’s not screw with it.
April 11, 2007 - 01:25 PM on April 11th, 2007
Too late Ted. It’s already happened and because this state is ruled by the democrats it will not change. What will be interesting is to see how it will play out. Will other states follow or will the moderates in this state that sensibly voted in Ehrlich and Steele once come back to vote republican.
April 11, 2007 - 01:30 PM on April 11th, 2007
Actually, this can be challenged in the SCOTUS, as it is a Federal issue.
April 11, 2007 - 01:35 PM on April 11th, 2007
12, Ryan, you evidently flunked civics.
I wonder if it is possible for PCD to respond w/o issuing forth a personal attack. I feel very bad for your spouse, as you obviously have a major communication difficiency.
I will, once again, remind you PCD that I am neither Republican or Democrat, as I do not trust that either side can look past their own race for money/power. Therefore, I could care less who the Electoral College benefits at the time, I still think that it is an outright slap in the face of the popular vote.
Anyway, back to the point. No one has answered my question. Does this not make you feel that your vote is inferior to “the man?”
It seems very simple to me, the majority of people speak their mind, and our Governmnent says “We appreciate your input, but we’re gonna go with this guy instead?”
How does this make sense any other way?
Perhaps since PCD excelled in civics, he can offer forth an honest explanation of how the Electoral College is a benefit to Democracy. Please hold the personal attacks though, thay make you seem less intelligent than you really are.
Ryan
April 11, 2007 - 01:36 PM on April 11th, 2007
Re 12:
“I guess I never understood the actual implementation of an Electoral College, other than to undermine the PEOPLES popular vote.”
Then it would seem you do not understand it, period.
“To me, it is more of a discouraging factor to the voters. I have always been told that MY vote counts, but does it really when it can so easily be discounted?”
That is a falsehood- it isn’t discounted at all.
If the majority of people vote for a leader, shouldn’t that individual become leader? Is that not the fundamentals of Democracy?
We live in a Federal Republic.
I suppose GWB wouldn’t have been president in 2000 if the popular vote was considered. I mean as far as the PEOPLE are concerned, he did LOSE by over a half a million votes.
Lincoln also lost the popular vote IIRC, amount 4 or five other President throughout history.
I wonder how this discouraging process wasn’t challenged at an earlier date.
Because as I said- most people understand the Father were and still are light years ahead of anyone today when it comes to the fundamentals of governmemt.
April 11, 2007 - 01:36 PM on April 11th, 2007
16.
Ted,
You seem to be a level headed individual, I am curious as to why you believe this would be a bad move?
Best,
Ryan
April 11, 2007 - 01:37 PM on April 11th, 2007
Re 12:
“I guess I never understood the actual implementation of an Electoral College, other than to undermine the PEOPLES popular vote.”
Then it would seem you do not understand it, period.
“To me, it is more of a discouraging factor to the voters. I have always been told that MY vote counts, but does it really when it can so easily be discounted?”
That is a falsehood- it isn’t discounted at all.
If the majority of people vote for a leader, shouldn’t that individual become leader? Is that not the fundamentals of Democracy?
We live in a Federal Republic.
I suppose GWB wouldn’t have been president in 2000 if the popular vote was considered. I mean as far as the PEOPLE are concerned, he did LOSE by over a half a million votes.
Lincoln also lost the popular vote IIRC, amount 4 or five other President throughout history.
I wonder how this discouraging process wasn’t challenged at an earlier date.
Because as I said- most people understand the Founding Fathers were and still are light years ahead of anyone today when it comes to the fundamentals of governmemt.
April 11, 2007 - 01:42 PM on April 11th, 2007
20.
“I guess I never understood the actual implementation of an Electoral College, other than to undermine the PEOPLES popular vote.â€
Then it would seem you do not understand it, period.
Yes Ted, this is the essence of my response. I am looking to you for understanding.
_________
“To me, it is more of a discouraging factor to the voters. I have always been told that MY vote counts, but does it really when it can so easily be discounted?â€
That is a falsehood- it isn’t discounted at all.
If the majority of PEOPLE vote a certain individual into office, and the Government says “thanks, but no thanks” how does the majority vote count? Perhaps I am missing something.
_____________
Because as I said- most people understand the Father were and still are light years ahead of anyone today when it comes to the fundamentals of governmemt.
I understand that this is your personal opinion, but yet does not answer the question with any helpful explanation.
Best,
Ryan
April 11, 2007 - 02:11 PM on April 11th, 2007
Ryan, I just dish back the personal insults to pompous, selfabsorbed, pseudo-intellectuals such as yourself to crush your “shields” and get through your stupidity to your core. It appears that even Ted’s reasoned approach doesn’t get through your arrogance.
This has been explained above, but you obviously can’t process information, Ryan.
The whole idea is first, this is not a democracy. That is the first assumption you have wrong and base your logic tautauology upon. This is a Representative Republic. If you can’t get your head around that concept, there’s no hope of making voting understandable to you.
Maybe we ought to have a Federal Law that if you can’t understand what a Representative Republic is and can’t accept or can’t understand the voting system here, that you can’t vote.
April 11, 2007 - 02:13 PM on April 11th, 2007
look, if the popular vote was the rule, Al Gore would be President right now (after reelection). We wouldn’t be stuck in a quagmire war, the economy would be booming, and Global Warming would be reversing.
Throw out the old elitist Electoral Club. Power to the People! How can this not benefit the country? The people spoke loud and clear last Novmber. The polls are overwhelmingly pro Democratic on the quagmire war issue.
So whatever benefits the Democratic party in their quest to reform the system is by definition good for the country, for the people!!!
April 11, 2007 - 02:37 PM on April 11th, 2007
Hello, target #1. Still looking for John Ashcroft under your bed? What if the majority of Americans decreed that all extreme leftists like you should be killed or deported? Would you think that you, as a minority, had a fair say in that decision?
April 11, 2007 - 03:06 PM on April 11th, 2007
Lenny, if Al Gore had become President we would be fighting terrorists outside our doors, in our streets, and our economy would be down the toilet. Remember how it sunk after 9/11. That was nothing compared to what we’ll face when we have to fight them here.
April 11, 2007 - 03:16 PM on April 11th, 2007
20.
Ryan,
This is a state’s right’s issue.
The big positive for the electoral college is that it prevents a small handful of states from single-handedly determining the Presidency. With out it, New York and California would dominate the electoral process. At that point we have an imbalance of state’s power.
The electoral college fairly balances state’s rights and power with that of popular vote. Each state’s electoral vote is cast by popular demand although states are free to determine how their votes are cast, and can even split vote if they wish.
April 11, 2007 - 03:39 PM on April 11th, 2007
28- That is a bit iffy on the States Rights side as we are talking about a Federal election….states must comply with federal law with regards to elections..otherwise, I agree with you.
April 11, 2007 - 04:41 PM on April 11th, 2007
18. Good point you made Peejz…so good in fact that I thought I would look into. There are a few republicans who fight the fights and as with Ehrlich and Steele sometimes even accomplish something. At any rate, it’s worth a try.
April 11, 2007 - 08:18 PM on April 11th, 2007
“Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.” Article II, Section 1, US Constitution.
You aren’t voting for the President, You’re voting for your state’s electors to the Electoral College. Where this took a turn was when it became standard practice for all of the electors from a state to go to the most popular candidate versus being apportioned to all of the candidates based on the number of votes received.
You really should read what the Constitution actually says about the Presidential electoral process, the US education system has failed in explaining it. I’m always learning new things when I read through the Constitution and I have a degree in Poli Sci and a minor in History. It is really NOT the simple procedure that all of the members of the media would lead you to believe. This is a representative republic, NOT a democracy. You get to vote for your representatives, they get to chose the President.
Hell, if this were a Democracy, resolution of the illegal alien issue would’ve been underway years ago. But when you have representatives who do the exact opposite of what their constituency has requested, damn little gets done. The voters of Arizona have repeatedly voted in favor of ever increasing restrictions on illegal aliens getting benefits in this state, but until it became OBVIOUS which way the wind was blowing last November, our Governor kept delaying implementation of any initiative that cut back on taxpayer funded benefits to illegals. It took voters in IOWA slapping McCain around about his stance on illegal aliens for it to sink in that the problem was that we have 12 million people who are here illegally, and until we get a handle on who we want to allow to stay and who has to be thrown out (criminals) we simply can’t leave the borders wide open for more to come in.
Maybe the wake up call for Governor Napolitano was when a 6 time deported convicted Felon was arrested following an afternoon rampage that included 2 home invasions, 3 carjackings, multiple auto accidents and shooting repeatedly at police and then attacked the sheriff’s deputy with a shank in the elevator at the courthouse following his arraignment. He’s 39 but he won’t be seeing the outside of a prison until he’s deported back to Mexico at age 73. BTW he was working with counterfeit ID making $19/hour as a heavy equipment operator. Exactly how is that a job American citizens won’t do?
April 11, 2007 - 08:25 PM on April 11th, 2007
29.
The original intent of the electoral college was two fold. The firstc was to providfe a voice for citizens that could not otherwise make the lonng journety by foot or horsebackto cast a vote personally.
Secondly, it was the federalist view that the electoral college better represented the states in an even handed manner. Remember, the states were looked at as individaul entities.
And while this is a federal election, with a few exception as outlined by federal voting law the vast majority of voting laws are state laws, as it is view that vting (even a national election) is a state’s rights issue.
April 12, 2007 - 09:09 AM on April 12th, 2007
32- Yes you do have state voting laws..understood…with thsat is the date of, requirements for the voter, etc…but a state must follow federal voting laws in the Presidential election..think of 2000. The SCOTUS was mandated by the COTUS to step in and take it out of the hands of FL…
April 12, 2007 - 09:44 AM on April 12th, 2007
33.
No-
The SCOTUS stepped in in the 2000 vote to prevent over litigation if the contested issue. It had nothing to do “state’s rights”.
The vast majority of laws governing nation wide elections are state laws. Few are federal voting laws. Most Federal Voting laws are enacted becasue of discrimition issuses (such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by President Johnson, which has been extended 4 subsequent times) and was enacted becasue case-by-case litigation was impractical and was rules Constitution by the SCOTUS.
Other than that, all other Federal Voting Laws have been instituted since 1986. Some are good laws (Such as the 1986 act) but most are just there to insure individual voters rights and to protect against discrimination. Some do so to a point that it interfere’s with stae’s rights (such as requiring bi-ligual ballots).
Here is a list of Federal Voting laws- for the most part none actually really relugulate State’s laws but just insures individual voting rights.
April 12, 2007 - 07:45 PM on April 12th, 2007
34- The SCOTUS stepped in because there are dates for certification that are mandated by the COTUS that must be met in the Presidential election. And the Presidential election is a federally regulated election…it is always the 1st Tuesday in November…Maryland can not decide to postpone it a day. A state can decide who their electors are, but they can not take the vote of the state away from the voters of the state.
April 12, 2007 - 07:48 PM on April 12th, 2007
The stupid hanging chad/dimpled chad debacle in the 2000 election was one of the sorriest, most disgraceful, ridiculous things I have ever seen. IMO that was as effective as anything else in diminishing the respect other nations have for the U.S.
Thanks, Al and the Democrites…
April 13, 2007 - 12:19 AM on April 13th, 2007
I do have one question for those who are still upset over the butterfly ballot/ hanging chad thing. If people are too stupid to be able to figure out a ballot, should they really be voting in the first place? Doesn’t it make sense for the electorate to be as well informed as possible? If they can’t understand how to fill out a ballot, how are they going to be able to understand what they’re voting for? The only party demanding that people unable to understand a ballot (alzheimer’s, illiterate, drug addicted, and of course Dead) be allowed to vote are the Democrats. What does that say about their constituencies? They only think that they can win by getting the votes of people unable to know what they’re voting for. That is so sad.
April 13, 2007 - 05:30 AM on April 13th, 2007
35.
More spefically. the SCOTUS stepped in because it was a voter’s rights issue. They detemined that the electorate has a right to a relatively quick election result. That is one of the vother’s right’s issue I was was refering to in 34.
“And the Presidential election is a federally regulated election:it is always the 1st Tuesday in November:Maryland can not decide to postpone it a day.”
This can be changed by the state’s- it is a state’s right issue, and determined by such, and not by the Federal Governement.
“A state can decide who their electors are, but they can not take the vote of the state away from the voters of the state.”
Exactly- voting is a state’s right’s issue. The indivual’s right to vote suopercedes the state’s rights. The state’s right’s superceded the federal.
All the federal rights do for the most part is protect an indivudual’s right to vote. nything else is not Constitutional IMO.
April 13, 2007 - 05:33 AM on April 13th, 2007
Re 37 (FAO):
If people are too stupid to be able to figure out a ballot, should they really be voting in the first place?
Absolutely, they should have the right to vote.
Doesn’t it make sense for the electorate to be as well informed as possible?
Of course, but that is irrelevant to their right to vote.
If they can’t understand how to fill out a ballot, how are they going to be able to understand what they’re voting for?
That is irrelevant. Like voting, free speech is inalienable. People have the right to speak in ignorance, just like they have the right to vote in it too.
April 13, 2007 - 05:59 AM on April 13th, 2007
38-
No that is not correct. A state law can not violate a Federal law or it is deemed unconstitutional. Whether or not you believe that is not the point, as that is how the Constitution protects the right of the people.
Let’s use the illegal alien vote. Our COTUS specifically spells out who can and can not vote…is it legal for Ohio to grant an illegal alien the right to vote?
April 13, 2007 - 06:34 AM on April 13th, 2007
40.
Yes, it is correct.
What the federal laws are protecting are Constitionally protected individual rights (which are ratified by the states, incidently) that as I said earlier, supercedes state’s rights. Illegal aliens can not vote simply becasue they are not citizens of the United States, and thus are not lawfully protected by the Constitution.
If you look at the history of this issue, you will see that the founding fathers saw it this way, as a Federalists issue. And sorry- I’m going to side with them 100% of the time. Federal laws should only supercede state voting laws when Constitutionally protected indivuidual rights are violated. Any other law should be and is against the intent of the founding fathers.
For example, in Ohio I could wear a “Bush 2004″ t-shirt into the voting booths if I wished to during the 2004 elections. In many states, this would be illegal and I would be asked to leave becasue it is deemed campaigning at the voting booths. This is an example of one of thousands of indivudual state laws. However, if federal laws were passed by Congress in this manner it would be illegal, deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because it violate’s state’s rights (if taken to court).
April 13, 2007 - 07:01 AM on April 13th, 2007
41- Ted, take some law classes.
April 13, 2007 - 07:11 AM on April 13th, 2007
42.
I have.
April 13, 2007 - 07:26 AM on April 13th, 2007
well you must not have passed the part about the COTUS, because you have no grasp of the subject
April 13, 2007 - 07:54 AM on April 13th, 2007
45.
Peezj,
No disrespect intended, but I’m curious what make you the expert? I find such comments to be an unwarranted personal attacks that I find to be suprising, to tell you the truth. It is distracting from the topic, to say the least. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your intent, and if I have I apologize.
Back on topic, the stance is pretty clear. Individual rights are Constutionally protected. Those individual rights supercedes state’s voting rights. In all other matter of voting though, the states take precedence. So, order of priority when it comes to voting:
1) Individual rihts
2) State’s Right’s
3) Federal Rights
This is the list of Federal Voting laws:
The Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006
The Voting Rights Act of 1965
The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (Motor Voter)
The Help America Vote Act of 2002
If you read these Federal Voting laws, most all of them are designed to protect indivdual voter’s rights or to assist state’s with funding.
What I find fascinating about these laws is that the vast majority of them have been enacted relatively recently. Why the suden rush?
April 14, 2007 - 11:20 PM on April 14th, 2007
Well Ted by your argument, the dead, and criminally insane should be allowed to own guns and vote to. BUT Criminals, the INSANE or drug addicted are NOT allowed to own guns so why should they be allowed to vote? Of course, the Democrats are moving to allow as many convicted felons to vote as possible as well. The right to vote is no more inalienable than the right to own a firearm, in fact less so as the Second Amendment precedes any amendment respecting voting rights. So why is it that the left insists on allowing the dead, incompetent, drug addicted and criminal to vote while insisting that noone be allowed to own firearms?