So now I don't get a vote?

[Moonliner]

OK I really hope I am missing something here (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=598&sid=1104830).


Maryland is poised to become the first state in the nation to approve going around the current Electoral College system and give the state's 10 electoral votes for president to the winner of the national popular vote.


So what am I missing?

Currently our votes are tallied and then used to assign our electoral votes. The electoral votes are then used to help decide the president.

Under this new plan, no matter who I (or every other resident of this state) votes for our electoral votes go to whatever candidate gets the most votes nationally? WTF??? How messed up is that? I just keep thinking I must be missing something.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Umm wow. That's seems pretty retarded.

[Tramspotter]

Umm wow. That's seems pretty retarded.

Don't you mean Wii-tarted. Plan on investing in costco and save your kids a table at Buttfvckers. :D

[innerSpaceman]

Um, no ... you'd get a vote. But your vote would now be equal to everyone else's individual vote in the nation for a national official being elected.

[mousepod]

I guess I kinda get it, especially since
(t)he plan would only take effect after enough states representing a majority of the nation's 538 electoral votes adopted it..
But it just seems like a half-measure - wouldn't it make more sense for Maryland to spearhead the movement to get rid of the electoral college altogether (if that's what they want)?

[Ghoulish Delight]

I guess I kinda get it, especially since
.
But it just seems like a half-measure - wouldn't it make more sense for Maryland to spearhead the movement to get rid of the electoral college altogether (if that's what they want)?Likely, that's what whomever proposed this bill feels like they're doing. A single state obviously doesn't have the authority to change the whole system, needing a Constitutional amendment and all. So instead they are trying to use what authority they do have (namely, each state is free to allocate their electoral votes however they choose) to circumvent the system and theoretically spark debate that would lead to proposing the necessary amendment.

But in my admittedly amateur political estimation, these kinds of "clever" round-a-bout ways of undermining a system rarely do much more than make people roll their eyes at whomever is trying. I agree that a much more direct approach stands a better chance of success.

[mousepod]

But in my admittedly amateur political estimation, these kinds of "clever" round-a-bout ways of undermining a system rarely do much more than make people roll their eyes at whomever is trying. I agree that a much more direct approach stands a better chance of success.

Kind of like Charlie Rangel and his ongoing support of conscription.

Clever? Perhaps. But not necessarily the best way to go about things.

[Alex]

As a supporter of the electoral college I think it is a bad idea for this idea to be implemented nationally.

As a supporter of federalism I think Maryland gets to assign their electors by whatever method they choose, even if I think it is silly.

But I definitely think there are better ways Maryland could reform their system (and promote national reform) that would improve implementation of a pretty vital -- in my not particularly humble opinion, of course -- constitutional mechanism rather than just toss it out the window.

Based on the fine print mousepod pointed out, though, it will never happen so it is just showboating.

But if the goal is really to bring more attention and campaign dollars to Maryland (it isn't about the iniquities of the Electoral College, just about bringing revenue to the state) then they should assign electors by district (Maine does this) rather than statewide majority. Currently nobody really campaigns hard in Maryland because it is solidly in the D column. But when you break it down to districts some districts will be in play and that will bring money.

[Tramspotter]

A Constitutional Amendment is what's needed to avoid all the BS if there is enough call for popular vote for President. Sidesteping it in practice is the same kind of usurption of powers that the Feds are guilty of towards the states. The majority in that state even if they overwelmingly vote against the popular votes candidate have thier "as a state voice" not reflected.

Some electoral college members still can still cast votes in states counter to their own states policys although in practice they nearly never do isn't that still the case?

[Moonliner]

I get it now, I still don't like it, but at least I get it. This is a push to end run the college nationally not locally.

I'm also not sure why we decided to start this, the whole point of the electoral college is to protect the rights of the little states and given them a voice. Last I checked we ain't no California.

[Alex]

As the article states, the concern is not small state rights or equal voter rights, but simply that presidential campaigns aren't spending enough money in Maryland. I don't think this will fix that but the quoted supporter does. Tramspotter: As long as it happens democratically, this is very much the federalism reserved to states by the constitution. There is no end run. The constitution specifically allows individual states to determine on their own how to assign electors. If they wanted, they could theoretically give that power solely to the governor. They could engage in a roshambo contest among the major candidates. They could put every candidates picture on a mat and give the electors to the candidate first shat upon by a chicken. 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


Some state have passed laws outlawing feckless electors but the constitutionality of such has never been tested in the courts. Since electors are almost always party faithful it means the end of a political career to vote wildly wrong.

[Morrigoon]

A nationwide popular vote seems like a good idea, but it puts a strong bias on metropolitan politics and leaves the rural folks in the dust. The city centers have the population to swing things their way, and their priorities often differ from those of the rural people (who, for one thing, grow our food).

Twisted though it seems... a regionally-assigned electoral vote gives those people a voice who might otherwise be completely ignored. Yes, it technically gives them more power per person, but our system was designed to make sure that the minority at least has a chance to be heard.

(To be fair though... I'm playing devil's advocate here, because it does seem like we don't need the electoral college with today's technology. And I don't think it's fair for some states to "round up" and give ALL their votes to the one candidate that won the most over the whole state rather than giving each vote according to how many votes it got within its own jurisdiction. Or at least assign by percentage share of total votes and then round up or down based on majority for the one elector who represents the split between the two.

[innerSpaceman]

But the mid-size states have ended up holding both the bigger and little states hostage. No campaign bothers to address the concerns of anything but "swing state" voters. Not that I want a barage of TV ads in California ... but just because California is, on the electoral college whole, a done deal for the Democrats, that's no reason (in my impartial opinion) to ignore the vast number of Republican voters in this huge, pluralistic state.

[Morrigoon]

Tramspotter: As long as it happens democratically, this is very much the federalism reserved to states by the constitution. There is no end run. The constitution specifically allows individual states to determine on their own how to assign electors. If they wanted, they could theoretically give that power solely to the governor. They could engage in a roshambo contest among the major candidates. They could put every candidates picture on a mat and give the electors to the candidate first shat upon by a chicken.


Only on LoT could a conversation about the electoral college contain a reference to chicken poop... and make perfect sense.:cheers:

[Alex]

(To be fair though... I'm playing devil's advocate here, because it does seem like we don't need the electoral college with today's technology.

I'm not sure what technology would have to do with it. I think it was on this message board (but I'm not going to look for it) that I went into detail on why I think the electoral college is important, why I think 100 years of static Congressional apportionment has knocked it out of whack, and how I'd reform it to bring it back in line.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Well, one could certainly argue that the quantum leaps in communication technology since the establishment of the Electoral College has mitigated to some degree the inability of smaller electorates to be heard or catered to. How much so and what it means for the efficacy and necessity of the college is of course debatable, but I definitely see it as a valid consideration in the debate.

[Alex]

At least for me, the importance of the electoral college is not one of communication or ability to be heard. It is that there are issues of geography that should carry some weight regardless of population.

[Jazzman]

I've always been a big opponent of the Electoral College. It worked great 200 years ago when counting a popular vote was technologically unfeasible. But today, that's simply not the case. Counting the popular vote nationwide is already being done, as the last two elections made painfully clear. But those popular tallies just don't mean anything more than a soundbite on the news coverage now. And I really don't worry about large metro areas swinging things, because to try and skew more power to rural voters to compensate is essentially saying that rural voters are more important because their votes would then count disproportionately in their ability to affect the outcome of the election. Suppose that the entire heartland wants Candidate A, but every metro area wants Candidate B and the final popular tally is for B because the cities hold more people. Wouldn’t it be a little undemocratic to elect A because voting power was skewed to the heartland to “make things equal?” Every individual vote equal is what I feel needs to happen, and that can only happen with a popular vote.

As far as Maryland and their idea, I think it’s noble, but somewhat akin to a Rube Goldberg device for solving a problem. If they really want to press the issue, then their representatives need to start pushing it vocally in DC and get others on the bandwagon. The American public loves a good cause du jour, and I have no doubt that the Electoral College could be made one. It just needs the proper attention.

[innerSpaceman]

At least for me, the importance of the electoral college is not one of communication or ability to be heard. It is that there are issues of geography that should carry some weight regardless of population.
But why? Why should geography play any part in our representative democracy? Going under the assumption that no one is isolated any longer from communication, why do rural Americans need more voting weight than urban Americans?


(Which Jazzman expressed more eloquently while I was posting.)

[Prudence]

Because it's the states electing a leader, and not a general population?

[Morrigoon]

But why? Why should geography play any part in our representative democracy? Going under the assumption that no one is isolated any longer from communication, why do rural Americans need more voting weight than urban Americans?


(Which Jazzman expressed more eloquently while I was posting.)

Because their needs are different, and without giving them some voting weight, their needs will never be attended to. A farmer in rural arkansas will be far more concerned about issues of, oh, let's say riparian rights, than someone who lives in a 1-br loft on the upper east side. And a farmer will certainly have different views on issues of immigration than an urban factory worker. To completely ignore one just because the other's vote is all you need to worry about is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Morrigoon]

Because it's the states electing a leader, and not a general population?

Excellent point!

But it ignores the fact that the federal gov't has grabbed more than its fair share of power since the system was designed, and so we may already be past a point of being able to pretend that the states are so autonomous - the power has already shifted.

[Jazzman]

Because their needs are different, and without giving them some voting weight, their needs will never be attended to.

Different, but more important? Because a farmer's vote carrying more weight (through a skewed Electorate system) than a city dweller's vote is putting more importance on his opinions than the city dweller. How can that be democratic? Do people who live in urban lofts not deserve the same and equal say in guiding their nation's political processes as farm folk out in the country? And we're talking about electing the Commander in Chief here, not voting on specific legislation concerning the farmer. He has state representatives to do that for him. So nobody is going to be silenced, because individual matters like farm subsidies, land use rights, etc. are all being handled by state and local reps.

[Kevy Baby]

Don't you mean Wii-tarted. Plan on investing in costco and save your kids a table at Buttfvckers. :DSmilie aside, this is a stupid and inane post.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Different, but more important? Because a farmer's vote carrying more weight (through a skewed Electorate system) than a city dweller's vote is putting more importance on his opinions than the city dweller. How can that be democratic?Who ever said we live in a democracy?

The point of the electoral college is that without it, those in sparsely populated areas have no voice. If a candidate can get 51% of the popular vote by catering only to the largest population centers, they will.

I don't know that I have a completely clear opinion on the matter myself, but mostly I fall with Alex on this. The current system isn't particularly effective as it has mostly shifted where the disproportionate representation is rather than mitigated it. But I think the solution is to fix the system, not do away with it. I just don't have a particularly good idea as to how to fix it.

[innerSpaceman]

And I think the states have every right to do an end run to do away with it, just as the Feds have been doing end runs around states rights for a couple of centuries.

It's within states' rights to do what they want with their electoral votes, including the rights to band together with other states to make the Constitution irrelevant on this point.

It may not be the most direct or ethical way to get to an ethical result ... but this is politics we're talking. And I find this solution to be among the least politically sleazy solutions ever proposed.

[Alex]

Different, but more important?

I want to be clear in saying that I don't think that switching to a straight popular vote for president would lead to our nation's downfall. But I still think it isn't a good idea.

I don't think it is so much a matter of a vote in one area being more important than a vote in another area. An opinion on Colorado River water policy is not more important simply because it is held by a Coloradan than a New Hampshirite.

The important effect of the electoral college is not that it gives more weight to individual votes in rural states but that it forces candidates to national office to at least pretend interest in the issues of rural states and balance those interests against the interest of urban states.

To continue using the Colorado River as an example, if all a presidential candidate cared about were raw votes when Los Angeles and Denver are fighting over water access and allocations then it is a slam dunk that you promise LA whatever they want to gain 3 million votes and lose 1 million in Colorado. The sensibleness of Colorado objections doesn't matter at all. Instead, ideally, the candidate is stuck trying to find a third way that will perhaps get him both LA and Colorado.

But this is a setting of priorities. Arguing that all votes should be 100% equal in value is a reasonable point of view and I don't disparage anybody who holds it and if it can be achieved through the democratic process I don't think it is really all that horrible. Just not, in my opinion, ideal.

Now, as I've said, the current system is tilted too heavily in giving geographic weight, but this is a byproduct of Congress having calcified at 435 members not something inherent in the electoral college. Reforming that would do a lot to balance things out.


That said, if Kerry had received a few thousand more votes in Ohio, how many of the currently anti-electoral crowd would be thanking their lucky stars that Kerry is president despite clear popular vote victory by Bush?

[Jazzman]

Who ever said we live in a democracy?

Seriously. You don't consider the U.S. a democracy. I really can't offer any response here because I have no idea how to discuss that issue. It's like denying that a horse has four feet. So, yeah...

...if all a presidential candidate cared about were raw votes when Los Angeles and Denver are fighting over water access and allocations then it is a slam dunk that you promise LA whatever they want to gain 3 million votes and lose 1 million in Colorado. The sensibleness of Colorado objections doesn't matter at all. Instead, ideally, the candidate is stuck trying to find a third way that will perhaps get him both LA and Colorado.

I'm not convinced that in today's world that would happen because I don't think it's that simple. If a candidate were to do that in today's society of instant news coverage and independent blogs, his promise to L.A. would go out over the airwaves and most likely piss off more than just the Coloradoans (Is that how you collectively refer to Colorado residents?) since everyone nowadays has an opinion on everything. There'd be concerned citizens everywhere who would look at that and say, "Well, he's just making false promises." Or, "If he'll write off Colorado that easily, then he probably doesn't care about us either" and vote for the other guy. The general public is more informed today than in the past, and I think that even with a popular vote a national candidate would still have to tread lightly for fear of losing the votes of the like-minded. Maybe I’m wrong and only those directly involved in the issue would let it change their minds, but after the national outcry over Katrina or other localized events like it, I just don’t believe that we live in a world anymore where people are that attached to just their own state, county, city or whatever. We’ve been taught for years now to “think globally,” and I think candidates would have to contend with that.

[Jazzman]

Of course, we could easily solve the problem with one season every four years of "Presidential Idol." Seacrest could host, Simon could rip on their domestic agendas, Randy could compliment their Brooks Brothers suits and Paula could drool on them. It'd be awesome, and Only On Fox!

;)

[Kevy Baby]

Seriously. You don't consider the U.S. a democracy? I really can't offer any response here because I have no idea how to discuss that issue. It's like denying that a horse has four feet. So, yeah...Note: I added a question mark at the end of the first sentence as I believe that was a question, not a statement. If I have done this incorrectly, I apologize.

It's splitting hairs in my opinion (saying that we do not live in a democracy).

Technically, the basis of our political system is a representative democracy - we elect leaders to make decisions for us on the majority of the issues (some issues, such as Constitutional amendments do require a vote of the people, but the majority of the decisions are made by the elected officials). We elect these leaders based on the perception that they will make the decisions that we expect them to make. Unless a government representative is elected by a unanimous vote (as highly unlikely a scenario as one could ever find), that elected representative is by nature not voting on behalf of all his or her constituents (i.e. - that representative is not acting on behalf of the people who voted for his or her opponent). This is the basis for the argument that we do not live in a democracy.

A "true democracy" has all of the affected persons (you and I) voting on each and every issue that comes to hand - a logistically impossible scenario in all but the smallest of entities.

[Alex]

We're a republic that selects its representatives through democratic means (it is entirely possible to be non-democratic republic).

Jazzman, you could be right. And like I said it is a matter of prioritization, not absolutes. However, if our modern technological society truly has conquered the problems I see that support something like the electoral college then I would say it is too soon to know for sure and therefore too soon to toss it based solely on that hope.

However, I don't know that I agree with the assumptions in your premise. I don't know that people are more informed now than in the past, though I do agree that they have the ability to be more informed and likely are much more informed on topics of specific narrow interest. And even if better informed I don't know that it would have the impact you expect. History pretty much demonstrates that the capacity of unimpacted people to express outrage at the slighting of others is pretty limited.

Besides, if Person A in Minnesota is going to be outraged at the insult to Coloradoans because maybe you'll insult them too, then Person B in Miami is just as likely to approve because maybe it is safe to assume that this candidate will reliably put the interests of urban development above the interests of mangrove swamps.

Maybe we've been taught to think globally for years but I don't see much sign that many actually do so.

[sleepyjeff]

For those who say we don't need the electoral college I ask why not take it to the next level?

Why not just have the Senate comprised of the 100 top vote getters? Sure, about 75 of them would probably be from either New York or California, but at least Democracy would rule out.

Why not do the same with Congress? Sure, we wouldn't have reps from states like Oregon or Montana anymore....too bad. The people who live in those states will just have to trust to democracy and good will that they will be treated fairly by their new reps whose true constinuents reside in Americas 6 or 7 largest cities.

[Alex]

It's not an unreasonable position to say that at least one branch of the federal government should be directly elected by the consensus will of the nation. And if so, then the presidency is the obvious candidate since no matter what you ultimately end up with just one person who can't realistically represent multiple viewpoints on the same issue.

An it isn't inconsistent to not extend this to every branch.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

It is not splitting hairs, in this particular conversation, to be specific about a "democracy" vs a "republic".If a candidate were to do that in today's society of instant news coverage and independent blogs, his promise to L.A. would go out over the airwaves and most likely piss off more than just the Coloradoans (Is that how you collectively refer to Colorado residents?) since everyone nowadays has an opinion on everything. While I do know that people hear more and more about what goes on in far corners of the country, I would never believe that we hear of one-quarter the shenanigans that go on. Add in that there are plenty that I hear about and really don't care about. We hear all the time about politicians favoring one group over another, be they geographic, racial, or monetary in nature, and is anyone a) surprised or b) up in arms about it?

Anyway, on the topic at hand - I can't say I love the electoral college, but I'm sure that if the current generation of representatives changed the Constitution we'd fvck it all up.

[Ghoulish Delight]

A "true democracy" has all of the affected persons (you and I) voting on each and every issue that comes to hand - a logistically impossible scenario in all but the smallest of entities.

The fact remains that we are not a true democracy, so to claim that having a representative process for electing the President is somehow anathema to our system of government is ignoring the fact that there is almost no part of our government that acts on a directly democratic vote. It is not antithetical to what we use democracy for. It may very well be that a democratically elected President is a good idea, but, "It's undemocratic to do it otherwise" is an argument that doesn't hold much water.

[dlrp_bopazot]

Here in France we'll have our presidantial Elections at the end of the month .

[Tramspotter]

Smilie aside, this is a stupid and inane post.

No I won't go smile outside!

And yur teh stupid! Talkin all gay n' stuff. Go to starbucks and get yerself er taken care of or something. And like talk normal and junk. :birdy: so like where's your barcode you should get scanned for jerkyness and what not.

[sleepyjeff]

Am I missing something?

:confused:

[Tramspotter]

Am I missing something?

:confused:

Apparently you and it would seem KB haven't seen Mike Judge's Idiocracy.

[innerSpaceman]

Not many people have.



I've seen it, and I didn't like it well enough to recognize the reference. Sorry, Tramspotter, but your quotidigitation of Idiocracy idiosynchracies does not differ enough from your own confusaspeech to have been generally attributed to a foreign source outside your own brain.

Best to remember to attribute weird style choices to their source, lest someone around here takes them as fightin' words.




.

[Tramspotter]

Not many people have.

That seems obvious


I've seen it, and I didn't like it well enough to recognize the reference.


Let me ask you this then: after it was pointed out did it come back to you at all? Starbucks, Costco, Buttfvckers as evolved from fudruckers.

Also answering KB as a citizen of that particular dystopia, seemed fine to me, whether he got it or not. For he seemed to go beyond ribbing and give a perfectly deadpan knee jerk terse response in any case. If I were actually serious and gave a thoughtful point by point of the issue, and got the same I would for my part certainly agree to disagree, and likely tell him to go pound sand smiley or none.



Sorry, Tramspotter, but your quotidigitation of Idiocracy idiosynchracies does not differ enough from your own confusaspeech to have been generally attributed to a foreign source outside your own brain.

Go pound sand :cool:


Best to remember to attribute weird style choices to their source, lest someone around here takes them as fightin' words.


That may be.

So tell me, how is it you receive unasked for advice?

Or alternately, is there a agenda there? As I re-read the last bit it could be taken as a subtle warning that a hit man from the gay mafia would surely rub me out (and not in a good way) for such an offense?

[€uroMeinke]

When you are paranoid, everyone has an agenda
;)

[Tramspotter]

When you are paranoid, everyone has an agenda
;)

Just because one is paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. :evil:

[€uroMeinke]

Just because one is paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. :evil:

Indeed
:gnome:

[innerSpaceman]

All correct, except the mafia part.