Maryland advances bill to dodge electoral college

[TZ]

Md. Senate Advances Bill To Dodge Electoral College

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


I love my state! Why couldn't they have thought of this a few years ago? Anyway, its a nice thought even if it doesn't actually happen anytime soon. Kudos to the new governor O' Malley too!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/28/AR2007032802150.html

[Bassic]

1. Good stuff.

The electoral college is sorely obsolete.

[Skidmore]

2. Doesn't the abolishment of the electoral college require a

Constitutional amendment?

[TZ]

4. its not abolishing the electoral college I think

but making it work a different way. At least thats what the article says. Not an expert in this field myself, but thought the concept at least excellent. Probably unlikely to ever come around but I like the idea of at least drawing attention to this issue.

[Gabi Hayes]

3. how on earth would this get past the SCOTUS? it's unconstitutional on its face

there HAS to be a constitutional amendment

I don't see any way around it.

[mainegreen]

5. Doesn't sound like it does away with the electoral college.

It just changes the way the electoral college works. The electoral college votes go to the national popular vote winner, not the state winner.

[MonkeyFunk]

6. It may be unconstitutional

but not for the reasons you think.

States are free to decide how they allocate their Electoral College votes. In this case, it just allocates the votes to the national winner, not the state winner. This part is perfectly constitutional.

But...

It may violate Article 1 Section X of the constitution, which prohibits states from entering into compacts or agreements with one another without the approval of congress.

[Bill McBlueState]

8. interesting

I hadn't thought of the argument from Article 1, Section 10. I wonder if the people behind this idea have a counter-argument.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Perhaps they would argue:

This is not a compact or agreement. We are just saying that our electoral college members will vote a certain way if the laws in enough states are written a certain way - or the present way, if they're not. They are not negotiating with any other state.

Would that fly? :shrug:

[MonkeyFunk]

14. I have no idea

but you can be sure it would be fought long and hard by the smaller states.

[Selatius]

12. The bill has to be amended then stripping the offending clause.

Otherwise, somebody will challenge the bill when it becomes law on that ground.

[Bukowski Fan]

7. If you read the article, it's quite clear

The way it works is that the state would choose to award their electoral college votes to whomever wins the popular vote. It's a clever way around the electoral college. There wasn't anything in the article saying it could be unconstitutional, or their could be a court case. The major problem is that it relies on most other states adopting similar bills.

This is the same legislation that CA tried to pass last year but Arnie vetoed. A few other states have similar bills. I hope I can see in my lifetime the electoral college become obsolete and have nation-wide Presidential races (I'm 23, that's how pessimistic I am about it).

[FormerDem06]

10. I still dont think it's fair to allow four states to decide the presidency (EOM)

I like that South Dakota, North Dakota and Rhode Island still get a say.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. well they'd have a say

the question is should they have a bigger say than their population warrants.

For example, California is roughly 69 times bigger than Wyoming, but only has 18 times the Electoral College representation. A vote for President in Wyoming equals 3.6 votes in California.

[ComerPerro]

16. good point

[FormerDem06]

19. I understand that but a candidate will now only visit the most populated states

So they'll never hear the issues of the small folks since they won't matter anymore. It no longer becomes important when you can take a list of 50 states and stop at #10 and be assured that if you do a good job in those, you win.

The EC at least seems fair, but there may be a better way.

[MonkeyFunk]

20. Depends on how you define fair

Why should a citizen of Wyoming have 3.6 times as much say over who the President is as a Californian?

The small states ALREADY have a huge advantage in our governmental system - the U.S. Senate. How much affirmative action do these states need?

[RB TexLa]

11. Have the big television groups given the governor and the bill's sponsors their money upfront?

I remember someone from Belo saying if we went to a popular vote stations in the top 10 or so markets could run five times the commercials and still turn millions away.

[Bill McBlueState]

18. one could argue that's not a problem

Stations in the top markets *should* run more ads; that's where most of the voters live.

Under the current system, small-town right-wing rags like the Manchester (NH) Union Leader have way too much control over who gets elected.

[Yavin4]

15. Hmmm, I Don't Know About This

Let's say that MD heavily votes for Obama over Gingrich, say 90% to 10%. Yet, Newt wins the popular vote nationwide by a narrow margin of .05%. Should MD throw their electors to Newt?

I lived in Washington, D.C. in 1984 when Reagan won every state except for MN and D.C. I'm still proud of that fact.

[Bill McBlueState]

17. that's worth looking at

That particular example sounds counterintuitive, but it is in keeping with the principle behind this law: that the winner of the popular vote should be the President.

[Yavin4]

21. It Happened in 1984

Under this new law, Reagan would have won a 50 state plus D.C. landslide in 1984. Imagine the crowing the conservatives would have made for years if this were the case.