Maryland Senate Advances Bill To Dodge Electoral College

[AZXD]

Md. Senate Advances Bill To Dodge Electoral College

By John Wagner and Ovetta Wiggins
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 29, 2007; B01




Maryland is poised to become the first state to agree to bypass the electoral college and effectively elect U.S. presidents by national popular vote under legislation moving briskly toward the desk of Gov. Martin O'Malley (D).

But the bill comes with a big caveat: It would not take effect until enough other states agree to do the same. "It's a long way from home," said Senate President Thomas Mike V. Miller Jr. (D-Calvert). "I don't know if it will happen in my lifetime."

The bill, which the Senate approved 29 to 17 yesterday, would award the state's 10 electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide -- not statewide. A similar bill was approved yesterday by a House committee and is expected to come before the full chamber today, and O'Malley signaled his backing.

Supporters of the measure, being championed by a national nonprofit group, say deciding elections by popular vote would give candidates reason to campaign nationwide and not concentrate their efforts in "battleground" states, such as Florida and Ohio, that have dominated recent elections.

Moreover, the supporters argue, such a system would prevent rare occasions, such as President Bush's 2000 victory over Al Gore, in which a candidate who wins the popular vote does not prevail in the electoral college, a fixture in U.S. elections since the nation's founding.

"Maryland could lead a national movement to popular election of a president," said Sen. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Montgomery), a freshman lawmaker leading the charge, after the hearing.

But even some of those who voted for the measure had doubts about how soon enough other states would come on board. The agreement would not take effect until states that cumulatively hold 270 electoral votes -- the number needed to win a presidential election -- sign on.

California lawmakers passed a version of the bill last year, but it was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R). This year, lawmakers in one chamber of the Arkansas, Hawaii and Colorado legislatures have approved such a measure, but it has not yet made it through the other chamber, according to National Popular Vote Inc., the California-based group pushing the idea.
Ryan O'Donnell, a spokesman for the group, said lawmakers in Maryland have been receptive because it is "the classic spectator state" in presidential politics.

"I think Maryland voters are tired of being ignored, and lawmakers are reacting to that," O'Donnell said.

O'Malley spokesman Rick Abbruzzese said the governor would sign the bill if it reached his desk. "He supports it, because every voter counts, and every vote should count equally," Abbruzzese said.

In another bid to become more relevant in presidential elections, Maryland lawmakers have passed legislation to move the state's 2008 primary to Feb. 12 from March 4.

Past talk about electing presidents by a national popular vote has centered on amending the U.S. Constitution, a cumbersome process that could take years. In theory, the nonprofit group's plan could be adopted more quickly.

Under the proposal, the electoral college would continue to exist but would function far differently.

Most states currently award all their electoral votes -- a number equal to the size of a state's congressional delegation -- to the candidate who wins the most votes in the state.

The proposal calls on states to award their electoral votes to the candidate with the highest vote count nationally. If enough states do that, the candidate with the most votes nationally would be guaranteed to win the election.

In addition to 2000, there have been three occasions when the winner of the popular vote did not prevail: 1824, 1876 and 1888.

Some lawmakers argued yesterday that a popular-vote plan could become unwieldy if the national count is close.

Sen. Michael G. Lenett (D-Montgomery) predicted "mass chaos" if a national recount were necessary. "While the electoral college is not flawless, the alternative might be worse," he said.

Lenett also said the system proposed could just switch the target for candidates from closely divided states to large cities with many voters -- a scenario that would not necessarily empower Maryland.

Lenett was among three Democrats who joined all 14 of the Senate's Republicans in voting against the measure.

Sen. Andrew P. Harris (R-Baltimore County) told his colleagues that they were moving too hastily. "Sometimes it's good being the first on the bandwagon, sometimes it's not."

The Senate vote sparked almost immediate action from the House Ways and Means Committee, which had been holding the bill until the other chamber acted. The panel voted along party lines to send the bill to the floor.

House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Anne Arundel) said the legislation would pass by the end of the week. "It obviously gives Maryland more of a voice in a national election," he said. "The last couple of elections, the candidates have concentrated all their efforts in the two or three states that are going to decide the election."

__________________________________________________ _____________________________

I think this is a step in the right direction, as I feel I am versed in english well enough to interpret what is said and make up my own mind about who I am voting for. Besides, this might give those who do not think their vote actually counts, a reason to get involved and vote.

[XDinNC]

The US Constitution. What's that?

[FrankRizzoXD40]

I think that bypassing the electoral college is a big mistake. We are not a direct democracy--we are constitutional republic.

The right of the states to have an representative say in who is elected President is an important part of our republic.

From Wikipedia:
"The Electoral College dilutes the votes of population centers that might have different concerns from the rest of the country. The system is supposed to require presidential candidates to appeal to many different types of interests, rather than, say, the urban or rural voter only. The College enabled the Founding Fathers to deftly incorporate the Connecticut Compromise and three-fifths compromise into the system of choosing the President and Vice President, sparing the convention further acrimony over the issue of state representation."

Frank

[Deacon51]

I hate this state (MD)... I can't wait to move back to Tennessee!

Why in the world would a State want to give up it's rights?

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

I think that bypassing the electoral college is a big mistake. We are not a direct democracy--we are constitutional republic.

The right of the states to have an representative say in who is elected President is an important part of our republic.

From Wikipedia:
"The Electoral College dilutes the votes of population centers that might have different concerns from the rest of the country. The system is supposed to require presidential candidates to appeal to many different types of interests, rather than, say, the urban or rural voter only. The College enabled the Founding Fathers to deftly incorporate the Connecticut Compromise and three-fifths compromise into the system of choosing the President and Vice President, sparing the convention further acrimony over the issue of state representation."

Frank

OK, perhaps I spoke to soon. I had not thought of the fairness aspect that much. But, it would get those involved who think their vote does not count, and end the squabble over close elections like 2000.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by AZXD

OK, perhaps I spoke to soon. I had not thought of the fairness aspect that much. But, it would get those involved who think their vote does not count, and end the squabble over close elections like 2000.

Your goals and intentions are noble, but abolishing the electoral college would allow all of the urban centers of our country to decide what is best for the rural areas....so to speak.

I agree, there needs to be some reform in regard to the election system. I disagree with all forms of computer voting--the chance of a large error is too great and they can be hacked and/or otherwise manipulated. Good old paper ballots are the best. The ballots need to be simple and easy to read. Punching chads should be banned. A simple ballot where you complete a line with a marker or check a box is the best. I also don't think that large mobs of people should be allowed to harass voters at the polling place.

I also agree, that more people need to be involved in the voting process. Everyone needs to take the time to educate themselves on the candidates. People should vote for a candidate based on how he/she feels about the issues that are most important to them.

Frank

[nickb]

Think of the entire country being run the way California is today. That's what you'll get with a pure democratic voting system.

Nick

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

Your goals and intentions are noble, but abolishing the electoral college would allow all of the urban centers of our country to decide what is best for the rural areas....so to speak.

I agree, there needs to be some reform in regard to the election system. I disagree with all forms of computer voting--the chance of a large error is too great and they can be hacked and/or otherwise manipulated. Good old paper ballots are the best. The ballots need to be simple and easy to read. Punching chads should be banned. A simple ballot where you complete a line with a marker or check a box is the best. I also don't think that large mobs of people should be allowed to harass voters at the polling place.

I also agree, that more people need to be involved in the voting process. Everyone needs to take the time to educate themselves on the candidates. People should vote for a candidate based on how he/she feels about the issues that are most important to them.

Frank

Thanks Frank,
As for the rest, I also agree. We need a simple reliable method for voting and recounts. The simple mark the spot is what we use, but it is then scanned into a big machine and your paper is also eaten by the big machine (no verification). It is the kind of like what I use at work for grading student exams, but ours is rather simple compared to what is used for elections. Then again, what we use at work might just be the best thing. It is simple, reliable, and best of all the Scantron is dispensed so the voter could see how it scored the vote. Thus giving the voter a last chance to verify their own vote before depositing it in the sealed container. Oh, and I'll bet its a lot cheaper than the machines most states are using.

[tenring]

Michigan internal electoral results are a microcosm that could demonstrate what a bad idea this really is.

Our elections come down to three cities. Detroit, Flint, and Pontiac outnumber, and outvote every other county in the state. This provides the opportunity for the population centers to legislate policies that benefit the large cities and the denser population areas at the expense of those in less densly populated areas.

Nationwide, you would see candidates even less in the midwest and the South because they would only have to win probably a dozen major cities to get elected. They would piss on the rural and suburban priorities in favor of those popular in the cities. The Electoral college is a great example of how smart the guys who set up this mess were. Unfortunately the skirting of the constitution and the redefining of history have allowed a generation of politicians who would think this is a good idea, when it flies in the face of what the constitution was set up for, to keep the power in the hands of the people, through their representatives, with a balance present between cities and rural areas and states, and the ability for someone to represent the mainstream of America even if they are spread out among many states. The electoral college blunts the overwhelming power of large cities and we need to adopt something similar here for state and local elections in Michigan too, not get rid of it. It would clean up some of the mess we have where urban concerns and priorities are instituted en masse for the whole freakin state. Something my fellow XD'ers in Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin, and probably several other states are eminiently familiar with. This will just give even more power to Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Madison, etc.

[NMCB3]

But the bill comes with a big caveat: It would not take effect until enough other states agree to do the same

Legally it takes a constitutional Amendment to do this. I`m not sure I understand what they are trying to pull here. Obviously Amending the Constitution is to difficult so they just want to ignore the law, and do as they please. 270 electoral votes is only 51% of the states. Oh, now I get it, it would only have to be 270 votes of the biggest states, which if I remember correctly are BLUE. I can see where they are headed with this.

Amendments may be proposed in two ways: by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress, or by a special convention summoned by Congress on the petition of two-thirds of the state legislatures. Either way it`s two thirds, not a majority.

Doing away with the electoral college is a bad idea, it`s the final step in wiping out state sovereignty, and another leap towards pure Democracy.

Senators were originally appointed to Congress by the state legislators. The 17th Amendment allowed direct election of senators by the people. This wiped out state representation in the senate. Now they want to end state representation in the presidential election.

In a constitutional republic the people are represented in the House, the states in the Senate, and the President is elected by state electors. Decentralization of power prevents tyranny, consolidation of power promotes tyranny.

This is why I`m always harping about the need to follow the Constitution. Once it starts to be ignored, it takes on a snowball effect and continues to get worse. When and if this comes to fruition, low population density states will be at the mercy of large states, which are overwhelmingly socialist Democrat. It will be exactly what the Founders warned us about, the tyranny of the Majority.

Edit to add; I wonder if the American sheep will ever figure this out.