So now I don't get a vote?

[Moonliner]

OK I really hope I am missing something here.

Originally Posted by news

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]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by mousepod

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]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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.