Maryland drops out of college

[Andreus]

source...cnn.com

......

Dropping out of the electoral college

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- What's happening in Maryland? On Tuesday, Maryland became the first state in the union to drop out of college. The electoral college, that is.

Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley signed a law that would award the state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. As long as others agree to do the same. "Actually, Maryland will drop out only if a lot of other states do, too. Maryland's new law will go into effect only if enough states pass similar laws to total 270 electoral votes -- the number needed to elect a President," O'Malley said.

Those states would agree to appoint presidential electors who would vote for the winner of the national popular vote, no matter who wins the vote in each state. It would be a way to turn presidential elections into a nationwide popular vote without having to amend the Constitution.

 

[Andreus]

still thinking about it here

it seemed relevant to us for discussion, but i dont know....

hopefully the debate on it here will help me make up my mind

 

[slobone]

This will never survive a challenge in the Supreme Court, so don't get too excited about it. It's about as blatantly unconstitutional as you can get.

Think about it -- what Maryland is saying is that if the majority of people in that state vote for a Democrat in 2008, and the country as a whole gives the edge to the Republican candidate, the electors from Maryland are required to disregard what their own voters decreed, and switch their vote from Democratic to Republican?

One of the nuttier ideas to come down the pike in a while.

 

[Nishin]

Is it a move to make the US president elected by direct universal suffrage?
It does sound interesting...
Although I studied the US election system at Uni, I forgot the specifics... can someone tell how many states would have to pass similar laws to total the needed 270 electoral votes?

 

[Andreus]

depends

if it was all the large ones i'd guess about 5

if it was the small ones probably thirty or more

 

[JayHawk]

I agree that the better system would be to proportion the votes according to POP vote. Having an entire state turn on its people over the national POP vote would be shitty.

 

[khushibagh]

I suspect that the Md. proposal would pass constitutional muster for the reasons cited by Mowrest20. According to Andreus, the proposal would only go into effect if it was adopted by states comprising a majority of the electoral college so it would guarantee that the winner of the popular vote would win the Presidency. If a state adopted a proportional division of its electoral votes unilaterally as mazda3boi proposes, it would put it at a disadvantage vis a vis the other states, which maintain a winner take all system. For that reason, Democrats liked the proposal in Colorado while Republicans would like to see it adopted in states such as New York and California.

 

[slobone]

The Constitution only states that electors be determined by the state legislatures and that the votes be sent to the Senate, not what manner they should do it. Some states, for instance Colorado, have decided to apportion their electoral votes per capita based on popular vote in the state. So, off the top of my head, I can't think of a reason that the legislatures couldn't decide to base electoral votes on US popular vote.

Not true, the issue is also addressed in the 14th amendment:

"But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state."

[With the parts about male and 21 having been subsequently amended.]

I don't see how you can abridge anyone's right to vote more thoroughly than by rendering his vote virtually meaningless!

Think about it some more -- what this proposal says is that the electoral vote of Maryland is going to be decided, not by how the people of Maryland themselves actually voted, but almost entirely by how the people in the other 49 states voted. Maryland's population is 1.85% of the national total, so if you're a Maryland voter, in effect you control only 1.85% of your own vote, with the other 98.15% being controlled by people who don't even live in the same state as you!

Also please note that this is not the same as replacing the electoral college with the popular vote. If the presidential election were decided by popular vote, every person's vote would count exactly the same, across the country -- a perfectly fair system. But under this proposal, your vote as a citizen of Maryland would not count the same as anyone else's -- it wouldn't count at all! There would effectively be no difference between voting and staying home. Why would anyone even bother to vote under these circumstances?

It's beyond nutty. And yes, you can bet your booties the Supreme Court will overturn it.

LATE EDIT: Oops, I'll edit the above instead of deleting it. Obviously I forgot about the part where the law won't go into effect unless states totalling 270 electoral votes do the same thing. That of course invalidates what I said about numbers, but not the general principle -- Maryland voters would still be partially disenfranchised. And for that reason I think it would be overturned.

But the 270 vote clause effectively makes the whole thing moot. No intelligent person in Maryland (I hope) believes that this is going to happen. So it's basically a symbolic gesture. Of what, I'm not quite sure...

 

[khushibagh]

Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution says that "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 to in the Congress". Therefore, there is no constitutional requirement to have an election for electors, however, if a state legislature chooses to select electors by election it cannot bar certain people from voting (i.e. only whites, people who make more than $X, etc. can vote).

 

[opinterph]

… Some states, for instance Colorado, have decided to apportion their electoral votes per capita based on popular vote in the state ...

Colorado’s Amendment 36 failed to pass. It was supported by only 34% of voters.

 

[joehill]

The Supremes would never let that happen

 

[Just_Believe18]

Very stupid. The Electoral College is part of what defines our Republic. To turn the nation into a Populist Democracy, it would be like electing a President via American Idol: 1-800-OBAMA.

What makes a Democracy fail is the fact that a 51% majority can beat the other 49% every time. The Electoral College is a balance between public sentiments and state rights. Remember, the federal government only exists through the union of the states.

I'm surprised this is coming from Maryland. The "point" system from the Electoral College actually gives them more power over the federal government than the populist votes of their citizenry. This is merely an ill-conceived liberal reaction to the 2000 election.

 

[frankfrank]

I'm surprised this is coming from Maryland. The "point" system from the Electoral College actually gives them more power over the federal government than the populist votes of their citizenry. This is merely an ill-conceived liberal reaction to the 2000 election.

For Maryland, there are 10 electoral votes. That's 1.86% of the 539 national electoral votes, one for each Representative or Senator which the states send to Washington). But there are 535 people in Congress - where do the other four electoral votes come from?

And Maryland, as *slobone* points out, has 1.85% of the national population.

In other words, Maryland (10 electoral votes) is among the few states where the Electoral College doesn't give any advantage or disadvantage. (There are a few states with 9 to 11 electoral votes, and the same can be said of them.) Smaller states have an advantage, because no matter what the population of a state is, two of their votes represent their two Senators.

It works in much the same way as, in cost accounting, when volume of business falls off for a company, but they still have their fixed costs. Spreading the 2 "Senator-related" eletoral votes is very noticeable in "low-volume" Wyoming, but barely noticeable with California or Texas.

Whether or not we may think the Electoral College system is "broken or defective" or what, there is no chance the system will ever be abolished fully, short of a totally-new Constitutional Convention. (Ewwwww...I don't even want to think about that...) Considering the number of "smaller-populated" states that enjoy some degree of enhanced representation from this electoral system, a measure to repeal would never make it through the Senate, let alone be ratified by 3/4 of the States. I believe there are at least 30 states that derive at least marginal net benefit from this system.

 

[khushibagh]

For Maryland, there are 10 electoral votes. That's 1.86% of the 539 national electoral votes, one for each Representative or Senator which the states send to Washington). But there are 535 people in Congress - where do the other four electoral votes come from?

In other words, Maryland (10 electoral votes) is among the few states where the Electoral College doesn't give any advantage or disadvantage. (There are a few states with 9 to 11 electoral votes, and the same can be said of them.)

DC has three electoral votes - so there are 538 total. While the system slightly benefits small states as you point out, that is the wrong way to view the impact of the Electoral College. The Electoral College disenfranchises voters for the losing party in "swing states" like Democrats in Texas or Republicans in New York. Also, if your state is not in play it gets ignored. In 2004, the candidates barely spent any time or effort in New York because it was a safe Kerry state.