Bozo in MD Senate wants to give EC votes to National Popular Vote winner

[Mouse_Master]

A bill in the Statehouse here in MD has a proposal by a State Senator to give MD's 10 Electoral Votes to whomever wins the national popular vote......

Almost makes it pointless to vote for president if this were to pass, which I assume there would be enough common sense not to pass it but you can never underestimate the idiocy of politicians...

http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=598&sid=1056871

 

[BoriquaSNK]

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Why doesn't Maryland split up its EC votes like Maine and Nebraska? I think every state should do that.

 

[IMTheWalrus]

A bill in the Statehouse here in MD has a proposal by a State Senator to give MD's 10 Electoral Votes to whomever wins the national popular vote......

Almost makes it pointless to vote for president if this were to pass, which I assume there would be enough common sense not to pass it but you can never underestimate the idiocy of politicians...

http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=598&sid=1056871

In principal I think this could be a good idea. I think the electoral college is worthless, but you can't implement a solution like this unless every state does it.

It would still be worth voting for president, it just would make the elections more national and less local. I guess strategy would change.

 

[aria]

While this isn't for the presidential election, I would love to see the US switch congressional votes to proportional, like the EU: i.e. you wouldn't vote for the individual, rather for your party of interest. The idea is the number of seats in Congress would assigned proportionally based on total votes (throwing the door open to third party candidates), then seats within the allowed seats would be assigned by the parties themselves.

 

[Mouse_Master]

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Why doesn't Maryland split up its EC votes like Maine and Nebraska? I think every state should do that.

I actually agree with this idea as well, and figured that was what was going on, but it would not make much sense in MD to be honest. The majority of the state is Democrats, and if they went by district, instead of the win going 100% to the dems as usual (I think Reagan was the last repub to win MD), it would split, probably 3 for the Rs and 7 for the Ds.

Last election,with this rule, would have given MD to Bush, even though I think he got less than 40% of the vote.

The electoral college is a necessary evil. Instead of Florida or Ohio being in the center of attention the last couple election cycles, every little precinct would have a court case, and democracy would have torn itself apart as each party tried to squeeze X amount of votes from every little power precinct they had. I don't like the winner take all fashion of it (The electoral college that is), but I think it works better at the large scale so that we don't have hundreds of court cases in tens of state fighting over votes.....

Changing the model of the college so that the Maine and Nebraska models are followed would actually make the candidates CARE about states with less votes than now. IMHO Gore lost because he only fought in the so called 'battleground' states. And the way the media has covered the last 2 elections, it seems like Florida & Ohio were that states which decided who won, not everyone else in the union.......

Enough ranting..... I just can't believe how stupid that proposal is.....

 

[IMTheWalrus]

I actually agree with this idea as well, and figured that was what was going on, but it would not make much sense in MD to be honest. The majority of the state is Democrats, and if they went by district, instead of the win going 100% to the dems as usual (I think Reagan was the last repub to win MD), it would split, probably 3 for the Rs and 7 for the Ds.

Last election,with this rule, would have given MD to Bush, even though I think he got less than 40% of the vote.

The electoral college is a necessary evil. Instead of Florida or Ohio being in the center of attention the last couple election cycles, every little precinct would have a court case, and democracy would have torn itself apart as each party tried to squeeze X amount of votes from every little power precinct they had. I don't like the winner take all fashion of it (The electoral college that is), but I think it works better at the large scale so that we don't have hundreds of court cases in tens of state fighting over votes.....

Changing the model of the college so that the Maine and Nebraska models are followed would actually make the candidates CARE about states with less votes than now. IMHO Gore lost because he only fought in the so called 'battleground' states. And the way the media has covered the last 2 elections, it seems like Florida & Ohio were that states which decided who won, not everyone else in the union.......

Enough ranting..... I just can't believe how stupid that proposal is.....

Ah, but MD has a democratic majority. Changing to a system by county or precinct would swing it in favor of republicans in every state in the union. It really makes no sense to award a state like MD to Bush with a district system when it's clear that the majority of the voters wanted a democrat.

This is why we just need a complete popular vote. Federalize the presidential elections entirely. It would probably take an amendment to the constitution, but then you wouldn't have to worry about people driving to other states to get their votes in for their party to sway the electoral college. The president has to represent all of us, so everybody's vote should count equally, which it does not under the electoral college.

The founders had a real reason to have the electoral college, but it's clear that their intent has become irrelevant in light of modern day elections.

 

[JHendrix]

The founders had a real reason to have the electoral college, but it's clear that their intent has become irrelevant in light of modern day elections.

It hasn't become irrelevant.

The intent was so that candidates could not ignore the smaller states and rural areas by just campaigning in big cities.

This concern has not become irrelevant in modern times.

 

[BoriquaSNK]

Ah, but MD has a democratic majority. Changing to a system by county or precinct would swing it in favor of republicans in every state in the union. It really makes no sense to award a state like MD to Bush with a district system when it's clear that the majority of the voters wanted a democrat.

This is why we just need a complete popular vote. Federalize the presidential elections entirely. It would probably take an amendment to the constitution, but then you wouldn't have to worry about people driving to other states to get their votes in for their party to sway the electoral college. The president has to represent all of us, so everybody's vote should count equally, which it does not under the electoral college.

The founders had a real reason to have the electoral college, but it's clear that their intent has become irrelevant in light of modern day elections.

Well not necessarily, while its true that it would help republicans in Maryland, it would definitely help Dems in states like Utah, Texas, Arkansas, and Minnesota where the numbers of blues and reds are much closer to 50/50.

I think it would force candidates to campaign in more states, and it would force more competition as well. Granted, it would probably get very ugly, very fast...I still think it's much less chaotic than a straight popular vote.

 

[IMTheWalrus]

It hasn't become irrelevant.

The intent was so that candidates could not ignore the smaller states and rural areas by just campaigning in big cities.

This concern has not become irrelevant in modern times.

I disagree entirely.

In the modern age of mass media, especially the internet and national TV news, you are exposed to the candidates. Plus there are so many local political groups who push voters everywhere, including small towns, that I don't think that the message of a candidate can be lost. I live in a town with practically nobody, and yet there was political involvement everywhere.

 

[IMTheWalrus]

Well not necessarily, while its true that it would help republicans in Maryland, it would definitely help Dems in states like Utah, Texas, Arkansas, and Minnesota where the numbers of blues and reds are much closer to 50/50.

I think it would force candidates to campaign in more states, and it would force more competition as well. Granted, it would probably get very ugly, very fast...I still think it's much less chaotic than a straight popular vote.

That's a good point, but I just don't see why we would use a system like that instead of a complete popular vote. As I said before, the electoral college makes votes worth different amounts, which is inherently bad in a system in which every voice is supposed to be equal.

 

[lithy]

Nothing in the Constitution is irrelevent.

Electoral College for life.

Also I don't like Bobak's idea of adopting the EU voting scheme. I'm mad enough that there are political parties I'd rather not have to pick one to vote for so that they can put their most hardline party members into office.

 

[IMTheWalrus]

Nothing in the Constitution is irrelevent.

Electoral College for life.

Also I don't like Bobak's idea of adopting the EU voting scheme. I'm mad enough that there are political parties I'd rather not have to pick one to vote for so that they can put their most hardline party members into office.

Nothing in the constitution is irrelevant? C'mon now. It's an old document written by people who couldn't see in the future. That's why there are amendments.

 

[Lagduf]

Terminator 2 is a really great film - "NO FATE BUT WHAT YOU MAKE"

Nothing in the Constitution is irrelevent.

Electoral College for life.

Also I don't like Bobak's idea of adopting the EU voting scheme. I'm mad enough that there are political parties I'd rather not have to pick one to vote for so that they can put their most hardline party members into office.

Word.

Word.

And Word.

Preach it brother Lithy!

Constitution for life.

Nothing in the constitution is irrelevant? C'mon now. It's an old document written by people who couldn't see in the future. That's why there are amendments.

C'mon now:

1.) What does the age of the document have to do with anything? - The freedoms guaranteed within and the basis of our government are irrelevant based on age? Huh? Are you trying to say old=bad?

2.) You don't think there was any planning for the future in that document? Gee I think it's worked pretty well since 1788 (lets ignore 1860-1865 for the moment).

3.) The constitution is a living a document - thats why there are amendments - but i thought no one planned for the future at the convention?

 

[lithy]

I knew Lagduf would be on my side.

 

[Lagduf]

I knew Lagduf would be on my side.

What can i say - you're a man of impeccable taste.

2>X

 

[BoriquaSNK]

Nothing in the Constitution is irrelevent.

Electoral College for life.

Also I don't like Bobak's idea of adopting the EU voting scheme. I'm mad enough that there are political parties I'd rather not have to pick one to vote for so that they can put their most hardline party members into office.

There is plenty in the Constitution that's irrelevant...that's where the term "living document" came from. A "Living Document" only establishes precedent, if we were serious about keeping a permanent constitution then we would have a right to privacy written in the document itself, not just hanging loosely from politically charged supreme court rulings that are just itching to be overturned.

The founders had no concept of lobbying, PAC's, 527's, Soft/Hard Money, or Campaign Finance.

There was no concept of the Suburb or Exurb, the highway system, the internet, the stock market, an income tax, or global trade. Half of our founders were libertarians and the other half were monarchists.

People fail to see that if Hamilton and Adams had gotten there way Washington would have been king, and if Jefferson and Madison had had their way, we'd be an agnostic Liberal free for all. The two balanced each other and we all came out on top.

I disagree with parliamentary Democracy only because it is unstable, and given how much power our executive has, switching now would be a disaster. By containing our Democracy to essentially two parties with a large number of camps within them, we've managed to stay afloat consistently longer than any other republic. Thus, our government is the most moderate in the world with occasional streaks of leftishness and rightyness thrown in for good measure.

 

[lithy]

What can i say - you're a man of impeccable taste.

2>X

Will you be my Valentine?

In any case speaking of retarded local politics. Here is what's going down in Knoxville

http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/local_news/article/0,1406,KNS_347_5331174,00.html

Recently the TN Supreme Court upheld term limits that were added by amendment to the county charter but instead of doing something intelligent like wait to install new commissioners in the next election, they immediately call for the removal of any office holders over the term limit which is something like 8 including the Sheriff. So they begin this appointment process. And what do you think happens. One guys votes for the Sheriff's replacement as the appointment. This guys wife takes his spot, he is hired onto the Sheriff's staff and the former Sheriff is hired on as well. Wow not a lot changed there.

Personally I think term limits are an awful idea. There is a reason the founders didn't put term limits into the Constitution even for the President. They weren't afraid of lifelong rulers if they were good and satisfied the people, they were afraid of hereditary rulers. With these appointments Knox County gets the latter, the post passes to his wife? Did I vote for the wife? Doubt it.

I've really been considering running for these new special elections. I'm sure I'd have to get on that pretty quick though, and I'm pretty sure that while I'm quite handsome I'm probably not electable

 

[BoriquaSNK]

Will you be my Valentine?

In any case speaking of retarded local politics. Here is what's going down in Knoxville

http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/local_news/article/0,1406,KNS_347_5331174,00.html

Recently the TN Supreme Court upheld term limits that were added by amendment to the county charter but instead of doing something intelligent like wait to install new commissioners in the next election, they immediately call for the removal of any office holders over the term limit which is something like 8 including the Sheriff. So they begin this appointment process. And what do you think happens. One guys votes for the Sheriff's replacement as the appointment. This guys wife takes his spot, he is hired onto the Sheriff's staff and the former Sheriff is hired on as well. Wow not a lot changed there.

Personally I think term limits are an awful idea. There is a reason the founders didn't put term limits into the Constitution even for the President. They weren't afraid of lifelong rulers if they were good and satisfied the people, they were afraid of hereditary rulers. With these appointments Knox County gets the latter, the post passes to his wife? Did I vote for the wife? Doubt it.

I've really been considering running for these new special elections. I'm sure I'd have to get on that pretty quick though, and I'm pretty sure that while I'm quite handsome I'm probably not electable

You'd be surprised. Joe Biden won his Senate seat right after his 35th bday. And Michael Moore was elected as school board chair at just 18.

Do it. Visit the local Dem or GOP office and talk to them about competing for the endorsement...they'll tell you exactly how to file papers as well.

Tennessee has a long history of corrupt local politics, but its nothing compared to Jersey, Texas, and especially Louisiana. DO it.

 

[lithy]

There is plenty in the Constitution that's irrelevant...that's where the term "living document" came from. A "Living Document" only establishes precedent, if we were serious about keeping a permanent constitution then we would have a right to privacy written in the document itself, not just hanging loosely from politically charged supreme court rulings that are just itching to be overturned.

The founders had no concept of lobbying, PAC's, 527's, Soft/Hard Money, or Campaign Finance.

There was no concept of the Suburb or Exurb, the highway system, the internet, the stock market, an income tax, or global trade.

I'm not so sure you aren't contradicting yourself here.

Sure the Constitution establishes precedent. So how does the founders not knowing about any of these things make the Constitution irrelevent? I guess I'm not sure what your point is here.

And about the right to privacy, I tend to take the stance that if there is one thing that is irrelevent about the Constitution, or at least unnecessary is the Bill of Rights. Because the government does not have any powers not granted to it by the people. The Constitution does not give our government the power to limit our speech, privacy, property ownership, etc. Therefore even without the Bill of Rights I feel those rights are protected by the simple fact that the people establish the government. A list of rights granted to the people is the exact opposite of the government. The government or Constitution doesn't extend rights to me, I extend certain rights to the government, things like taxation, etc. I'm sure I'm rambing.

 

[Lagduf]

Personally I think term limits are an awful idea. There is a reason the founders didn't put term limits into the Constitution even for the President. They weren't afraid of lifelong rulers if they were good and satisfied the people, they were afraid of hereditary rulers.

You know that makes sense. But George did set a precedent by only being in office for two terms that was followed up until FDR. (aside - do you think Lincoln would have/could have run for a third term if he hadn't been shot?).

I honestly don't mind Term limits for the president.

I am more wary of Heriditary rulers though. The fact that we had Bush 41 and Bush 43 in office makes me cringe slightly - and not because I'm not GWB's #1 fan either - i'd have said the same thing if Robert Kennedy had been elected in 1968. I'm not really a fan of the political families either.

Although the father to son thing seems more dynastic then brother to brother but meh.

I suppose I like the two term limit for the president because i'm wary of any one person being in that kind of power for too long regardless of how good they are. Yes we have checks and balances but meh. I suppose it's a sort of knee jerk reaction to my absolute dislike and distrust of the monarchy.

Word though.

Word.

The government or Constitution doesn't extend rights to me, I extend certain rights to the government, things like taxation, etc. I'm sure I'm rambing.

Do you hold this truth to be self evident?

That we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights

 

[Lastblade]

I vote for whomever gives me $20 first.

 

[lithy]

You know that makes sense. But George did set a precedent by only being in office for two terms that was followed up until FDR. (aside - do you think Lincoln would have/could have run for a third term if he hadn't been shot?).

I honestly don't mind Term limits for the president.

I am more wary of Heriditary rulers though. The fact that we had Bush 41 and Bush 43 in office makes me cringe slightly - and not because I'm not GWB's #1 fan either - i'd have said the same thing if Robert Kennedy had been elected in 1968. I'm not really a fan of the political families either.

Although the father to son thing seems more dynastic then brother to brother but meh.

I suppose I like the two term limit for the president because I'm wary if any one person being in that kind of power for too long. Yes we have checks and balances but meh. I suppose it's a sort of knee jerk reaction to my absolute dislike and distrust of the monarchy.

Word though.

Word.



Do you hold this truth to be self evident?

That we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights

I've been seeing a lot about what we would think if we ended up having Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton, a span of 24+ years of two families holding the office. I'm not entirely sure what I think. On the surface I don't like it, it does reek of dynastic politics, but then I realize it must be the electorate's fault, we voted for them. So I can't fault them for winning the election, I suppose I could fault our two-party system that by simple funding measure drowns out third party's and convinces people that they would be throwing away their vote to vote outside dem/rep. It's tough to say.

As another aside, I think Abe would've definately won, especially with the castrated voting rights of southerners. Aside #2, TR pledged not to run for a third term and apparently severely regretted the decision right after the election. I'd have to look into that more.

I think that about covers it.

 

[lithy]

Do you hold this truth to be self evident?

That we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights

Yes, although do to my personal beliefs I suppose I could modify the sentence to something like this. "If I think therefore I am, then I am therefore I have unalienable rights."

I vote for whomever gives me $20 first.

You've got Paypal

 

[Lagduf]

I've been seeing a lot about what we would think if we ended up having Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton, a span of 24+ years of two families holding the office. I'm not entirely sure what I think. On the surface I don't like it, it does reek of dynastic politics, but then I realize it must be the electorate's fault, we voted for them. So I can't fault them for winning the election, I suppose I could fault our two-party system that by simple funding measure drowns out third party's and convinces people that they would be throwing away their vote to vote outside dem/rep. It's tough to say.

Ah but the people don't always do what is in their best interest.

I agree that on the surface it looks dynastic but perhaps it isn't. As long as we keep our eyes open and wits sharp. Afteral the price of freedom is simply eternal vigilance.

I still love our bizzarre little republic.

 

[lithy]

Ah but the people don't always do what is in their best interest.

Of course they don't and while I fault them for being so damned gullible, I also fault the people who initiate those types of actions/laws/whatever because despite being our politicians, they too are citizens of the State. People should know better, but fear, anger, compassion get the best of them.