Maryland Sidesteps Electoral College

[Sparkly]

Maryland sidesteps Electoral College

By BRIAN WITTE, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 1 minute ago

ANNAPOLIS, Md. - Maryland officially became the first state on Tuesday to approve a plan to give its electoral votes for president to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the candidate chosen by state voters.

Gov. Martin O'Malley, a Democrat, signed the measure into law, one day after the state's General Assembly adjourned.

The measure would award Maryland's 10 electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. The plan would only take effect if states representing a majority of the nation's 538 electoral votes decided to make the same change.

I'm so proud of Maryland! :applause: :woohoo:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070410/ap_on_el_pr/electoral_college_maryland

[Benhurst]

1. Recommended #1

:bounce:

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. This is good only if

the other states can competently count their votes.
And too many states lack my confidence to do so.

[sutz12]

3. I strongly disagree with this....

In effect, it disenfranchises one's own state IMO.

I'd like to find a better way than the current electoral college system. I just don't think this is it.

:shrug:

[NewYorkerfromMass]

5. yep. nt

[Sparkly]

8. We'd be voting in the national election, not disenfranchised. nt

[NormanYorkstein]

19. same here

there's nothing wrong with the Electoral College.

[Sparkly]

23. Nothing wrong with the Electoral College??

Does it always represent the will of the people?

[NormanYorkstein]

41. yes, nothing wrong with the Electoral College

There are about a million other things we need to fix with our elections and voting systems, and the Electoral College is not one of them. Yes, it does represent the will of the people.

[Sparkly]

43. "It does represent the will of the people" except when it DOESN'T

and the fact that it DIDN'T in 2000 led to BushCo gaining the power they have.

[NormanYorkstein]

49. yes it did

we have 50 states. It's in the Constitution. Presidents don't get elected by a nation-wide majority.

[Sparkly]

66. That's why it didn't work to express the will of the people. nt

[NormanYorkstein]

77. the will of which people? the will of ALL the people?

The will of the majority in each state? The will of the majority as a whole?

[Sparkly]

86. The people of the United States.

The majority as a whole. The popular vote. All votes weighed equally.

[NormanYorkstein]

120. okay, you should amend the Constitution then

do you think there may be some good reasons for the EC the way it is? Have you ever read the standard reasons for it?

[Sparkly]

121. Constitutional amendment isn't needed.

States determine their own elections; electors can cast votes as they deem appropriate.

[NormanYorkstein]

122. okay, what do you think about the pro-EC arguments?

Have you ever "read the case" for the EC? What do you think of those?

[Sparkly]

123. There've been several 'cases' for it -- it's changed over time.

I think it is no longer needed as an instrument for estimating the popular vote.

I think it is WRONG to afford representation to land mass rather than people. Cows and corn fields don't vote.

I think it is WRONG to put state governments ABOVE the sanctity of the votes of the people in a nation that's supposed to be of, for, and by the people (not of, for, by state governments).

I think it's useless, symbolic, but HARMLESS when the will of the people, as measured in the popular vote, is heeded. But because of the potential for the loser of the popular vote to take office, it is problematic.

This measure is a brilliant compromise, because it allows EC fans to keep their measurements of state electors, but ensures that the electoral college will not supersede the will of the people.

[NormanYorkstein]

127. okay, those are good points - what about the Senate?

I don't think it representation to land mass, it gives representation to what used to be "sovereign states".

Would you also change the Senate? Connecticut and California both have two? Should the Senate be proportional as well?

[Sparkly]

132. I'll leave that to another thread.

Which you may start if you wish, but I'm not particularly interested in debating the structure of Congress. It's an entirely different subject.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

125. The problem with the electoral college...

...vis-a-vis the popular vote is that, in the case of the latter, 1 person = 1 vote. In the case of the electoral college, 1 Electoral Vote from smaller states are more heavily weighted than 1 Electoral Vote from larger states. And the Republicans like it that way for a reason.

I've demonstrated here before, that when using a proxy for an Electoral Vote (EV') based on a state's population, such that 1 EV' (WY) = 1 EV' (VT) = 1 EV' (FL) = 1 EV' (CA), Gore would have had enough electoral votes to beat Bush irrespective of Florida.

The electoral college is not designed to handle the likes of population disproportionality we see today. That's the problem with the electoral college.

[ProudDad]

76. WTF

Don't you remember the 2000 presidential selection -

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

[NormanYorkstein]

79. yes

how is that relevant? Bush stole FLORIDA, not the electoral college. Too bad Gore didn't help the CBC do something about it.

[Sparkly]

87. Florida swayed the entire electoral college.

If this proposed plan had been in place, it wouldn't have mattered. Enough other states would have backed the winner of the popular majority: Gore.

It is EXACTLY relevant. It's designed to ensure that never happens again.

[Exultant Democracy]

21. The law only kicks into effect when the majority of the states do the same thing

this is all about giving the people the vote.

[slackmaster]

30. I agree with you - the only proper fix requires a constitutional amendment

To abolish the EC altogether.

[Sparkly]

39. This could be a step in that direction.

If the EC became irrelevant, it's a much smaller step to abolishing it.

[last_texas_dem]

57. I don't see how it disenfranchises states

Popular vote gives every vote of every person, no matter what state they're from, equal weight. Presidential candidates already write off the vast majority of states by ignoring basically all the states that aren't "swing" states. The Electoral College, therefore, disenfranchises the majority of states already. At least under a popular vote system, every person in every state across the United States has a vote that will matter in the final tally, unlike under the current system where people who belong to the minority party in strong "red" or strong "blue" states know going into the election that their vote doesn't really make a difference.

[valerief]

4. Excellent. Now let's hope the vote counts aren't hacked. nt

[NewYorkerfromMass]

6. yep again

People prematurely are jumping for joy over this.
Remember: Look before you leap.

[Sparkly]

9. That's true in ANY case. nt

[rinsd]

7. Jaime Raskin is either clueless or being dishonest

"State Sen. Jamie Raskin, a law professor and sponsor of the idea, said Maryland is largely ignored by presidential candidates during campaigns, because they assume the Democratic state will vote for the Democratic candidate."

And this will not change because of this law. Candidates will not begin flocking to MD. They will now ignore the state because it has too few voters to bother.

"Raskin, a Democrat, said he hoped Maryland's support for the idea will start a national discussion and "kick off an insurrection among spectator states — the states that are completely bypassed and sidelined" during presidential campaigns."

This shifts action from the large states to the large population centers. You will still have your token pitstops in small states but as before the action will be where the votes are.

I respect the one man one vote argument for getting rid of the electoral college. I may not agree with it but it has merit. But this bait and switch that suddenly small states will matter in terms of candidates attention is disengenous at best.

[RufusTFirefly]

10. Why winner-take-all though?

I know Maryland is generally a blue state but even so, I wish the bill had divvied up the electors proportionally. My state is even bluer than Maryland and my area is about as blue as it gets (hallelujah), but I'm concerned that voters red and blue are alienated by the fact that a one-percentage difference can render their presidential vote meaningless. The Maryland law does not address this.

In sum, I don't favor abolishing the electoral college. Despite its questionable, undemocratic genesis, it's the only thing that keeps presidential elections from just becoming a contest for the major media markets (of which, once again, I am a member). But I do favor awarding electors proportionally.

[Sparkly]

11. This is a step toward equal votes, and away from winner-take-all.

The system of electors is probably harder to get rid of, but becomes less relevant if the majority of electoral college votes are decided THIS way.

"Proportionally," on a national level, should mean every citizen's vote counts the same, imho.

[RufusTFirefly]

12. That's not how I read the bill's explanation

If 51 percent of the popular vote goes for Giuliani and 49 for Edwards, all 10 Maryland electors will go to Giuliani, will they not?

[Sparkly]

14. That's right (provided a majority of electoral votes, state by state, agree) nt

[rinsd]

13. Its a dishonest step, sold in a dishonest way

[Sparkly]

15. What's dishonest about it? nt

[rinsd]

16. The sponsor...

"State Sen. Jamie Raskin, a law professor and sponsor of the idea, said Maryland is largely ignored by presidential candidates during campaigns, because they assume the Democratic state will vote for the Democratic candidate."

This is implying that candidates will now spend more time in MD because of the law. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Raskin, a Democrat, said he hoped Maryland's support for the idea will start a national discussion and "kick off an insurrection among spectator states — the states that are completely bypassed and sidelined" during presidential campaigns."

Its a lie to say small states will get more candidate attention because of this bill. It doesn't even make logical sense, population centers will replace large states and large states have the most large population centers.

I may not agree with the one man one vote popular vote for President as a concept but at least its honest.

[Sparkly]

22. If all votes were equal, the state-by-state campaigning would be less relevant.

I think that's the reasoning.

I'm just glad a step's been taken -- whether or not it even succeeds at this point -- to establish EQUAL votes to represent "the will of the people."

[rinsd]

26. Its still dishonest.

Make the case of one man one vote and let it stand on its merits.

To imply this will help the state of Maryland is a bunch of BS>

[RufusTFirefly]

18. In an electoral-free world, Maryland would be moot

Why trouble yourself with carrying Maryland (population:5,296,486) when you can just carry the San Francisco Bay Area (population: 6,783,760) instead? That's good for me (I live in the Bay Area), but bad for democracy.

[Sparkly]

24. It wouldn't be so much about "carrying Maryland."

See what I mean?

Yes, I can see that more highly populated areas might be greater geographical draws. But I also think campaigning is done a lot by ads, interviews, TV, and other media now -- not JUST handshaking and in-person speeches.

[RufusTFirefly]

27. I see what you mean but don't support what you say

Yes, it would support "one person, one vote" in theory, but in practice, if you lived in Maryland, your vote would potentially be meaningless. Idaho, Wyoming, Montana? Forget about it. Think that living in Maryland is the same as living in the San Francisco Bay Area, for example? I sure don't, and I've basically lived my life in those two places.

Besides, I think that handshaking and in-person speeches are good for democracy and ads are bad. The former requires interaction. The latter are essentially propaganda. We're not selling a product here, you realize. Or at least we shouldn't be. This is democracy we're talking about, not laundry detergent.

[Sparkly]

28. "your vote would potentially be meaningless" -- WRONG.

It's a vote in the NATIONAL ELECTION.

Campaigning techniques are a different debate. I don't care much about whether politicians spend a lot of time here. I just want my vote to be equal to everyone else's.

[RufusTFirefly]

29. The country's strength is its heterogeneity. Savor it.

I for one don't want America to be turned into one big amorphous blob, echoing the shopping-mallization and corporate consolidation of everything else in this country.

As Howard Dean correctly pointed out, for example, "gun control" means something totally different in Vermont than it does in New York City. (I remain "pro gun control", although I respected his position.)

If you don't live in one of the major markets, your vote may count as much as anyone else's, but it won't matter as much.

What do you tell the folks who will be disenfranchised by this scheme? "Congratulations, your vote now counts, although you no longer have a say."

Once again, the solution falls between the two points: abolish winner-take-all not the electoral college, and award electoral votes proportionally.

[Sparkly]

38. I'm talking about equal votes

not amorphous blobs, corporate consolidation, gun control, or anything else you brought up.

It's a (perhaps even "the") fundamental principle of the country that the WILL of the PEOPLE is exerted through our votes. Equal votes supersedes all the other things you've mentioned, imho.

[RufusTFirefly]

50. Would you like to abolish the Senate too?

It would logically follow that you would.

After all, the same inequities embodied in the EC are echoed in the Senate as well. (California has approximately one Senator for every 17 million people, while Wyoming has one for every quarter of a million.)

The point I was trying to make (albeit imperfectly) is that if elections run entirely on popular votes, elections will quickly become a one-size-fits-all affair.

Everyone will get a vote, yes, but the candidates will pitch to the major metropolitan areas and ignore the rest. Count on it. It will be the most efficient way to campaign. Corporations are about efficiency; democracies aren't.

Again, this will personally benefit me in the short term as I live in a heavily populated area and heavily populated areas tend to be bluer. But in the long run, it's a bad idea.

If you are familiar with the history of the Constitution, then you know that the tension between big states and small states has existed since the beginning. Ultimately, the only reason the small states joined the Union was because they were assured that they wouldn't be swallowed up or rendered moot by the big ones -- the "tyranny of the majority" writ large. The Bill of Rights helps to protect against this pitfall (the phrase has been attributed to both John Stuart Mill and de Tocqueville) on an individual level. The EC, deeply flawed as it may be, performs a similar function on a national level.

[Sparkly]

69. Senators are elected by a majority of their constituents.

I believe national officers should be elected the same way.

Further, this move doesn't do away with the electoral college, you'll notice. It ensures that the majority holds sway -- that all votes are equal.

Whatever that does or doesn't do to campaigning, in my view, is far less important than the idea of EQUAL votes among citizens.

[RufusTFirefly]

74. Yes, but some Senators have disproportionate influence

Isn't that the problem that O'Malley's law is trying to address?

When you cast a vote for Mikulski or Cardin or whomever, your vote is 6 times more powerful than my vote for Boxer or (holding nose and pulling lever) Feinstein. (that's based on the population of California divided by the population of Maryland, given that our two states both have two Senators.)

Your vote is already worth more than mine! (Where's the fairness there?)

But you're obviously cool with that, because you look at your vote narrowly in terms of its impact on an individual Senate race rather than on your overall clout as a Marylander in the Senate. So, you're fine with the fact that individual Maryland voters have more of a say in Senate races than California voters, just as long as you've got your vote. Fair enough. I agree with you reluctantly, which is exactly why I oppose O'Malley's law.

[Sparkly]

88. It's an entirely separate question.

If you want to discuss representation in the Senate, start another thread. This is about a different issue: representation in electing the Executive Branch.

[RufusTFirefly]

104. Separate question??? No it's not.. It's very much related.

Where does a state's electoral vote count come from? From the sum of the total number of senators and the total number of representatives. If the number of senators were based on a state's voting population, we would either have a lot more senators or some states would have none. In other words, the same threat to your "one person, one vote" idea is what determines the number of senators per state.

I've enjoyed discussing this with you, but I see we're at loggerheads. You think that I don't "get it," and I feel the same about you. So I think I'll just leave it at that.

P.S. The Executive Branch is obviously very important to American democracy, but to see what the framers thought was the most important component of our government, check out Article 1 of the Constitution.

[Sparkly]

105. Separate election, thus separate question. nt

[ProudDad]

78. A real democracy

would have neither the electoral college nor the Senate. Both are UNDEMOCRATIC BY DESIGN.

The founders were the well off minority of white landowners and merchants, in other words, bush's base the haves and the have mores. Most of them desperately feared being ruled by the "mob" (or women or black people or Native Americans or workers without property).

Therefore they built in buffers in the form of the Senate and Electoral College to short-circuit any "mistakes" the rabble might make with their franchise.

As for small states vs. large states -- is this a nation or a loose band of autonomous fiefdoms?

You might also consider that the authoritarian bullshit society the right-wingers have been pushing for the last 30 years; the "I've got mine, screw you Jack!" attitude of "conservatives" from all parties; the anti-democratic, anti-humane crap the right-wing talk shows love to spew, is supported by acceptance and promotion of 'autonomous nature' of the states to this anti-democratic extent.

[Heywood J]

95. "is this a nation or a loose band of autonomous fiefdoms? "

The answer is yes. Externally, it's the former. Internally, the Constitution reads like the latter.

[slackmaster]

32. No, the EC vote would still be the deciding factor

If you vote with the majority in your state, but the EC vote goes to the opposing candidate because of the national popular vote, you are disenfranchised.

[Solon]

35. How is that any different in most states now?

Look, according to you, I've been disenfranchised during the past two election cycles, because, unfortunately, my chosen electors didn't get to vote for the Presidents I wanted. Ah, the glories of the "winner takes all" system when the difference between winning and losing it all hinges on 2%.

[Sparkly]

37. I don't see it that way at all.

It's a national -- not a state -- election. My vote would count nationally.

[slackmaster]

60. But under the existing EC system my vote helps control California's EC votes

Under the proposed system, my control over California's EC votes would be diluted by votes from all other states. That's disenfranchisement.

I don't agree with your logic at all, Sparkly. I've heard all the arguments in favor of the proposed system, and IMO it doesn't make things any better for the Democratic side. Not one bit.

[Sparkly]

70. Huh?

Your vote would not get "diluted" in any way in the national election.

I think you're confusing the states' EC votes with the idea of a national majority. To me it's very simple logic. There is no downside, except that NO votes are "diluted" when the popular majority is guaranteed to hold.

[slackmaster]

82. I suggest, as a thought experiment, playing back the 2004 election

The actual outcome was approximately:

Bush - 62,040,610 popular, 286 electoral
Kerry - 59,028,111 popular, 251 electoral

The disparity between the popular votes was about 2.4%

The disparity between electoral votes was 35, or about 6.5%.

Now, go ahead and redo the results, putting as few or as many states as you want under the proposed system. Pick any states you want to have under it. Red, blue, big, small; strongly in favor of one candidate or close.

The disparity between the electoral and popular votes grows as you add states. Unless you happen to pick all Bush states to go under the new system, Bush's lead in the EC grows the more states participate. But we know that California, and Maryland, went solidly Democratic in 2004. Put all of them under, and Bush gets all 575. It could just amplify a small popular vote lead into a more decisive victory, but it's at least as likely to make the EC more wildly disparate from the popular vote than it is now with all states playing by the same rules. That hurts the losing side when the popular vote is close, and the intent of the authors of the Constitution is that sometimes the side that loses the popular vote deserves to win.

Under the existing system, a rather small shift on WHERE the Kerry popular votes occurred could have tipped the election the other way. Under the proposed system, that would not have been possible.

States' demographics are often delicately balanced. Unforeseeable population shifts like the Louisiana residents who moved to Texas after Hurricane Katrina and never went back, can change a state's balance of power.

This proposal is a type of gerrymander, and it's a risky idea. I respect the opinions of people who support it, but it doesn't pass my hard reasoning as a real fix to the problems created by the EC. And I believe it is unconstitutional because it is an attempt to do an end-run around the amendment process.

[Sparkly]

89. "a rather small shift on WHERE the Kerry popular votes occurred"

That's exactly the issue. The only recent election to "play back" that's relevant is the 2000 one.

The fact that people move around is, if anything, support for this proposed system. No matter where people lived, it would be ensured that their votes would not be overridden by the EC structure.

I don't see how this idea could be unconstitutional. The states' electors would still be casting their votes as they saw fit, which is what's required.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

47. That's a misconception

There are no artificial divisions to "carry" under a non-Electoral College system.

You wait until all the votes from every state and territory are counted. Whichever candidate gets the most of the popular vote NATIONWIDE wins.

Under the current system, all Democrats in Utah might as well stay home, because the state always goes Republican. Under a non-EC system, Utah's Democratic votes would get added to the nationwide Democratic "pile" instead of being irrelevant.

Under the current system, the presidential election is usually over before Hawaii and Alaska get to vote. Under a national system, the votes of Alaska and Hawaii residents would count exactly as much as that of Californians and New Yorkers.

[BearSquirrel2]

52. Ditto on proportional ...

I too would prefer proportional allocation of electors. It would make for good races in tight states. But I think that this concept had the virtue of being merely symbolic since getting 25 other states to throw in with this is going to be difficult.

[w4rma]

17. Careful of election fraud in that one state where Republicans run everything. (nt)

[AnOhioan]

20. Fantastic idea...if other states follow maybe we...

can finally rid ourselves of that particular concept.

[Sparkly]

25. I can't believe DEMOCRATS are arguing with it!!

:wow: :crazy: :wow: :crazy:

[slackmaster]

31. If it had been in place in California in 2004, GWB would have had an EC landslide

And I would have been disenfranchised.

That's the problem with it.

[Solon]

33. And if we had it in 2000, we would have had President Gore...

I don't see why American citizens can't have their votes count equally towards the election of a President, one person, one vote, and all that. Just because a system that is in place either now or in the future will sometimes lead to a result we don't like, doesn't mean that we should abandon the idea. Unless you would prefer we were a One-Party state.

[slackmaster]

59. Irrelevant - We should have had President Gore with the existing system

:argh:

[Solon]

106. Think of it this way, the EC allows for easier ways to commit election fraud..

The Repukes only had to concentrate on a few swing states, keystone states, to take ALL their electoral votes. Under a non-EC system, that wouldn't happen, because, for example, in 2000, the Repukes would have had to try to prevent Gore from gaining the 500,000 votes he got, NATIONWIDE, he didn't get ALL those popular votes from just one state, or even just two, but scattered nationwide. Yet, because of the EC system, Repukes messed with a few different states, most famously Florida, and because of a difference, at the time, of somewhere around a few hundred votes, that were counted anyways, the popular vote winner lost the EC, and Bush went into the White House.

[slackmaster]

109. I don't think that's not a valid justification for eliminating the EC

The fraud problem needs to be addressed as a fraud problem. No fraud is acceptable, EC or not.

[Sparkly]

40. The EC wouldn't have mattered. That's the point. nt

[slackmaster]

58. No, the EC would have still decided the election

MY vote would not have mattered. THAT is the point.

:argh:

[last_texas_dem]

61. The Electoral College would have decided the election

but CA would not have had to vote for the popular vote winner unless enough states amounting to a majority in the Electoral College has passed this law pledging to vote for the nationwide popular vote winner.

Your vote would have mattered. The difference between the Electoral College and a popular vote system is that under the Electoral College, unless one is from a "swing" state, voters who aren't members of a state's majority party have votes that essentially don't count. Under a popular vote system, everyone's vote, across the country, no matter what state, no matter what political party, are worth the same amount.

[slackmaster]

65. Let me explain why this won't fly

The reason the EC works as it presently does, is to give small states a little bit of leverage in the election of the President. It parallels the allocation of Representatives and Senators - Each state gets two Senators no matter its size. Maybe that's not fair in the present day, but it's what the supreme law of the land says.

Your vote would have mattered. The difference between the Electoral College and a popular vote system is that under the Electoral College, unless one is from a "swing" state, voters who aren't members of a state's majority party have votes that essentially don't count. Under a popular vote system, everyone's vote, across the country, no matter what state, no matter what political party, are worth the same amount.

A popular vote system would be fine with me, but the proposed system is NOT a true popular vote system - States that have not opted in would decide their EC votes the way they are decided now. Voters in those states would retain full control over their own states' EC votes PLUS having influence over the EC votes of states that opted in.

A system that effectively guts the EC without abolishing it altogether would arguably reduce the influence of small states like Alaska, Nevada, and Montana - The same states that would block a constitutional amendment to eliminate the EC altogether.

And those states would sue in the US Supreme Court.

And they would probably win.

I'm in favor of a nationwide popular vote system to elect the President and Vice President. But as long as there is an Electoral College in place, I don't want voters in Florida or Alabama having any influence over how California's EC votes are allocated, when I don't have any influence over how their EC votes are allocated. From my perspective as an "in" state person, voters in states that did not opt in would be getting two bites at the apple, while voters in small states that did not opt in would be able to argue that the big states (ones that opted in) had conspired to dilute their power. Both arguments have merit.

The present system occasionally gives quirky results, but over time those quirks average out.

[Sparkly]

72. I'm going to try to explain this again.

You wrote:

A popular vote system would be fine with me, but the proposed system is NOT a true popular vote system - States that have not opted in would decide their EC votes the way they are decided now. Voters in those states would retain full control over their own states' EC votes PLUS having influence over the EC votes of states that opted in.

Stop and think.

A MAJORITY of the EC votes are required for this agreement to work. That's in the article, as cited.

If a MAJORITY of the EC votes reflect the MAJORITY of the popular vote, the other states have no additional "influence." The MAJORITY would be there, with the popular vote.

It makes perfect sense.

Even if all the "opted-out" states went for the loser of the popular vote, the MAJORITY is still with the winner of the popular vote according to this proposed idea, which Maryland is willing to take on IF states representing a MAJORITY of the EC votes join.

Do you understand? No states get "more" than what they have now. It SIMPLY ensures the EC system CAN NOT screw up the will of the people again, and override the popular vote. PERIOD.

[slackmaster]

83. I think I see something you are missing completely

A MAJORITY of the EC votes are required for this agreement to work. That's in the article, as cited.

A majority of the EC votes as they are distrubuted at one particular point in time, i.e. now is required for the agreement to work. As people move around, that distribution changes. Gradually, but it does change. Withing my lifetime I have seen California go from the second heaviest hitter in the EC to the heaviest. (It had been New York for a long time.)

The existing EC does adapt to population shifts. The proposed system would give us a patchwork quilt of states that do it the old way and states that do it the new way, thus eliminating the PLANNED inequity giving smaller states a slight edge.

Do you understand? No states get "more" than what they have now. It SIMPLY ensures the EC system CAN NOT screw up the will of the people again, and override the popular vote. PERIOD.

The occasional subversion of the will of the majority of the people by the EC, giving an edge to smaller states, is by design. There is a constituational process for changing that if we can all agree on a fair solution. Bypassing that process is unconstitutional.

[Sparkly]

90. "The occasional subversion of the will of the majority"

It's a separate argument about whether that was part of the original design of the EC (rather than an awkward attempt to represent the will of the people in the 1800s) and how it functions now, philosophically and practically.

The fact that people move around would not be relevant under the proposed agreement, because their votes would still be protected from EC overrule, no matter where they lived.

I think people here are getting hung up on the EC tallies. Look at it this way: If you're a fan of the notion of state electors, they'd still be there. You could still add up the electors according to the state elections' results, as we do now. The sum total of electors under this system doesn't change any of that -- the national election is, in effect, "winner take all" -- so that if a candidate wins by a close margin, it's the same result as if they'd won by a landslide. The result is the same, so the EC vote COUNT is merely symbolic. They don't get extra power by winning a wider majority.

This is about that final result, and ensuring ONLY that the popular vote loser doesn't take office.

[slackmaster]

96. The EC vote is not supposed to be "merely symbolic"

It's a separate argument about whether that was part of the original design of the EC (rather than an awkward attempt to represent the will of the people in the 1800s) and how it functions now, philosophically and practically.

No, I see it as quite clear. The EC in its present form was intended to give small states an edge in choosing the President, just as each state is given, in the Senate, equal representation while in the House it's proportional to population. It was a compromize, it's somewhat bizarre, but it's one of the fundamental checks and balances built into the system.

This is about that final result, and ensuring ONLY that the popular vote loser doesn't take office.

I would support a real national popular vote system. It would take 38 states to make the change in the constitutionally mandated manner. This is an attempt to subvert that process by as few as 10 or 12 states.

[Sparkly]

97. I give up.

As I said: we can argue, as a separate aside, about the history of the EC and its current function, intended or not. We could also argue about whether the definition of "small" is in population or geography. (States with large rural areas and relatively smaller populations currently get the edge.)

The issue is whether each vote is equal. In EFFECT, that is a "national popular vote system."

If all votes are equal, the EC tally WOULD be merely symbolic. That's what I think it should be! I see no reason for some citizens' votes to weigh more heavily than others.

On edit: The notion of the EC vote as symbolic. What power do you think it currently conveys if it's a wider margin vs. a narrow one? It's winner-take-all. Does a greater number of EC votes give the president more power?

[slackmaster]

100. I agree all votes should count equally

The proposed system would not really accomplish that. It would still be possible for a candidate to get a majority of the popular vote, and lose the electoral vote. I would be very upset if California's popular vote went for the Democratic candidate, the national popular election went just barely for the Republican, and we had to give the GOP our electoral votes. That could still happen under the proposed system.

If we want to fix what we see as a problem with the EC, we should work toward fixing it all the way in a Constitutionally defensible manner. I would support a Constitutional amendment to abolish the EC, but nothing less.

My stepfather used to tell me that a job half done is often worse than one not done at all. I think that applies in this case.

Peace.

[Sparkly]

101. "It would still be possible for a candidate to get a majority of the popular vote, and lose..." How?

"... the electoral vote."

How would that be possible? Please describe a scenario in which that could happen under this system.

[slackmaster]

102. Say 10 large states, CA, NY, MA, MD, IL, etc. have adoped the system

Barely enough states to account for a majority of the EC vote. Most states are still on the traditional EC system.

A New York native son running as a moderate Republican, someone vaguely like Rudy Giuliani, who also happens to be very popular among moderate voters in other participating states, takes New York and most other populous New England states solidly, and barely wins the popular vote nationwide because he's unpopular in Western states (again, kind of like Rudy Giuliani). This hypothetical Republican wins in the states that are still on the traditional EC system, so he gets all of their electoral votes.

As usual, California's popular vote goes solidly to the Democratic candidate. Under the old system California's electoral votes could be enough to tip the result so the Democratic candidate wins. But because of the national majority going to the GOP, our pseudo-Giuliani wins.

It's exactly the same problem as the current EC. It seems like the change would make a fiasco like 2000 less likely to happen. True enough, but it could work against Democratic interests with IMO foreseeable circumstances.

To say the requirement that states comprising a majority of the EC votes are required to participate before it kicks in assures that the solution will "work" en every case, misses the point that no particular set of states can always be counted on to vote the same in every possible future election.

If anyone thinks my logic is hopelessly flawed feel free to point out why.

[Sparkly]

103. That's not an example of winning the popular vote and losing the electoral vote.

In your example, he does win the popular vote as well as the electoral vote.

[slackmaster]

108. Yes, and think about what California voters would do next

The majority of us would find ourselves saying "Well, we really got screwed on that deal. Let's go back to the old way so we can stop the country from making mistakes like this again!"

The state legislature would do nothing, there would be a petition drive to put an initiative on the ballot to restore the old EC system, and the EC = NPV coalition would be broken. It's not clear to me whether or not that scenario would force other states to go back to the old way.

The "right guy" would have won as he would have in a straight up popular vote, but it would still really be the wrong guy from the perspective of voters in the West.

[Sparkly]

117. The right/wrong guy

But it's exactly what happens anyway. My state went for Kerry, but Bush took office. It would make NO EFFECT to the outcome -- and be merely a formality to protect against the popular vote loser taking office -- if Maryland's 10 electoral votes had been cast for Bush. Everyone would still know we voted for Kerry. The election wouldn't have been changed.

[last_texas_dem]

54. That wouldn't have happened

because states amounting to 270+ electoral votes have to have passed this law before it would go into effect. California would only have had to vote for Shrub if enough states amounting to an Electoral College majority had the law in place as well.

And besides, the vote would likely have been quite different. California Republicans, Texas Democrats, New York Republicans, etc. would actually have their votes in the Presidential election have an effect on the outcome, which they don't currently have under the Electoral College system.

EDITED to add some words to the last sentence so that it would actually make sense!

[ProudDad]

80. If it had been in effect in 2000

gwb would have never f*cking SEEN the inside of the White House...

And we wouldn't be in Iraq...

[slackmaster]

84. True, but the sword cuts both ways

Let's be frank about this:

Right now it looks like the edge the current system gives smaller states favors the Republican side. If it didn't, then nobody on the Democratic side would be promoting the proposal.

But we don't know that smaller states will always tend Republican, and the IMO fact that the change would be made in an attempt to thwart the small state advantage written into the Constitution would make it unconstitutional.

[Sparkly]

91. It cuts ONE way -- to the will of the national majority.

And in a democracy, it's not a question of whether that favors one side or the other.

It isn't -- or shouldn't be -- a partisan question. It's simply about doing what's right.

[many a good man]

34. Sponsor Jamin Raskin is the coolest

A little bit OT, but a good story about the bill's main sponsor.

On Wednesday, March 1, 2006, at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested to testify.

At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"

Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

The room erupted into applause.

[nicknameless]

36. TERRIBLE idea!!! Here is Election Protection's Sherry Healy's reasoning against

a similar bill in California last year. It shows the pros and cons of both sides.

http://www.califelectprotect.net/AB2948.pdf

[Sparkly]

42. Could you sum up why you think it's terrible?

pdf files crash my browser for some reason... :(

[nicknameless]

64. Three points from the .pdf file:

:bluebox: Election Integrity FIRST! We have proof from innumerable computer
scientists, including Professor Avi Rubin of Johns Hopkins, that
one computer software programmer can work in secret to swing
an election by one vote just as easily as a million votes (e.g. using
an undetectable software algorithm or simple vote flipping). See,
http://tinyurl.com/lxd6v Also, we’ve all witnessed in full view, how
Kenneth Blackwell, Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush actively work to
“swing” the Presidential elections.

:bluebox: Blue State Suicide Pill? While California works hard to champion
election integrity measures, such as the recent accessible voter-veri-
fied paper trail, other states are working just as hard in the opposite
direction (e.g., Ohio rendering it illegal to recount federal elections).
Until we get our collective election integrity in order, we do
not want to dilute our verified with a sea of counterfeit votes generated
by states whose practices are proof of a wanton disregard for accuracy,
which stealthily preclude any means to prove wrongdoing.

:bluebox: 2004 Bush Wins California. Finally, as a practical example, Bush
would have been the victor for this proposed pact in the 2004 Presidential
election, and thereby would have gained not only all of California’s
electoral college votes, but also would have gained ALL of
the pact member state’s electoral college votes. So, who really would
be the big winner?

[Sparkly]

92. response

The first two points -- about election integrity -- are of course critically important. And they're a separate issue.

The third one is the same hang-up discussed on this thread. Under the proposed system, you can still count up all the state results and calculate the EC tally as we do now. Formally, it'll look like more of a landslide for the popular vote winner, but there is absolutely NO PRACTICAL EFFECT in that. The only time a practical effect would take place is IF the popular vote winner would have otherwise lost the Electoral College. Beyond that, it's numbers on a piece of paper -- symbolic, but not with any practical meaning.

[nicknameless]

93. The first two points are NOT a separate issue. They’re critically important.

The alleged popular vote in other states (no matter how many millions have been flipped, added or disappeared) will go into determining the overall popular vote.

That overall popular vote will determine who will be awarded the total electoral votes of the participating states.
NOT ALL STATES ARE SWITCHING TO THIS METHOD OF ELECTORAL VOTE AWARDING.

Right now, it’s just a handful of bluer states that have been discussing these kinds of measures.

Why should bluer states allow overwhelming election fraud, in places like Texas, Florida and Ohio, determine who is awarded their electoral votes? That’s insane.

[Sparkly]

98. *sigh*

Accurate, verifiable voting systems are crucial in BOTH structures.

Looking at your example from the other side of the equation, why should 547 votes from one state's errors, problems, fraud etc. lead to a whopping 25 electoral votes that sway the election, overriding more than 500,000 votes nationwide?

Second, the would-be "participating states" would form an EC MAJORITY. What happens to the other states' EC votes wouldn't matter.

Nobody is proposing "allowing overwhelming election fraud."

[nicknameless]

111. Are you talking about Florida?

That’s the whole point.

States with laws and election officials who support election rigging cannot be counted on for accurate vote counts.

The 2004 election saw MASSIVE amounts of vote switching, with overvotes for bush and undervotes for Kerry, plus extreme voter suppression in Democratic precincts.

By the time it was over, bush had been awarded the popular vote -- even though it can be argued that more Dems registered to vote for Kerry than had been registered for Gore, and many repubs switched from voting for bush in 2000 to voting for Kerry in 2004.

It’s bad enough that states with outrageous amounts of election rigging cast their electoral votes for the candidate who didn’t actually win.

These kinds of measures will require that the participating states cast their electoral votes for the candidate who “wins” the popular vote. In 2004, due to rampant election rigging, that would have been bush.

Right now, it’s just a handful of blue states who are proposing these measures.

Your last sentence excerpted what I wrote out of context.
I wrote: “Why should bluer states allow overwhelming election fraud, in places like Texas, Florida and Ohio, determine who is awarded their electoral votes?”

That is exactly what these kinds of measures would do.

[Sparkly]

116. *sigh*

That's right. And 547 votes in Florida didn't matter to the popular vote tally. Unfortunately, because of the EC system, it weighted 25 electoral votes.

In the proposed system (or an abolishment of the EC, either one), Gore would have taken office in 2000.

And yes, Bush still would have taken office in 2004, as he did under the current EC. So I'm not sure what you're protecting here.

[nicknameless]

129. After the 2000 election, the rethuglican party went into overdrive to rig elections.

HAVA pushed through touch screen voting, with unverifiable vote counts, and proprietary software.
The cost to recount elections was pushed far out of reach for most grass roots groups.
Alaska Dems have been trying, without success, since 2004 to get access to the election data they're entitled to see.
Choicepoint's and Diebold's involvement in culling voter rolls disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of legitimate voters.
Groups like Sproul ran phony voter registration drives to get rethugs only registered.
Registration forms of Democrats were thrown out.
Countless precincts were closed, requiring voters to drive long distances to voting centers. Those who couldn't get there? Too bad.
Dems in Ohio, etc. were told to go to the wrong precincts, made to wait hours, only to be required to vote on provisional ballots that didn't get counted.

Etc. ad nauseam.

The voting environment of 2000 is LONG GONE.

[Sparkly]

130. More reason to go with the national popular vote. nt

[nicknameless]

67. The current proposals do away with the electoral college, state by state --

starting with the bluest states who are pushing these kinds of measures.

This requires that all of the electoral votes of the participating states (like MD, in this case) be given away to the winner of the popular vote in *other* states.

So even though California voters overwhelmingly chose John Kerry, because Ohio, Florida, Texas, etc. have tallied up massive numbers of miscounted votes and overvotes for bush *PLUS* undervotes for Kerry, California would have to give away ALL of their electoral votes to bush.

This disenfranchises voters whose states have passed these measures, gives far too much weight to the non-participating states, and can VERY easily result in a "win" for the losing candidate.

Four more years of another bush? Will it be Jeb next time?

[Sparkly]

99. OMG, I don't know why this is hard to grasp!!

It's not about "popular vote in *other* states" -- but about popular votes in ALL STATES. It is a NATIONAL tally.

Voters would NOT be disenfranchised, any more than they are now when their state electors vote for a candidate who ends up losing.

You could STILL tally up the EC votes in the old way and see, state-by-state, how that system plays out. As a formality, however, this system ensures the popular vote winner takes office, and that is ALL it does.

It does not otherwise change the outcome, or disenfranchise anyone. It does not give other states "too much weight." The "participating states" would make up a MAJORITY of electoral votes, and would reflect the MAJORITY of the popular votes nationwide.

[nicknameless]

113. Sorry, I worded that sentence poorly.

I meant the popular vote in ALL states -- rather than just the participating state’s popular vote.

I stand by what I wrote in the rest of that post.

[Sparkly]

119. I say again...

"it gives far too much weight to the non-participating states" -- NO, it gives them NO EXTRA WEIGHT!

I'm not a mathematician or I'd draw an equation to illustrate it.

The "participating states" would form a MAJORITY of the electoral votes. So when they cast their electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote, that's the decision right there. There is no further influence the "non-participating states" can have.

[nicknameless]

128. The popular vote includes all the vote-rigging states illegitimate counts.

Overwhelming vote rigging, like we saw in 2004, can make the loser appear to be the "winner".

That illegitimate "winner" would get the electoral votes of the participating states.

I would rather that the corruption of Texas, Florida, Ohio, etc. NOT have any sway in determining who gets the electoral votes of other states.

[Sparkly]

131. I still don't think you understand.

"Vote rigging" is an issue in either system. If you're claiming the sum of all the states in the nation is MORE "rigged" than any one state in particular, I can't agree with you. It can take just ONE state's electoral fraud to tip the EC balance to a candidate the majority of the nation did NOT CHOOSE. We learned that in 2000. It should never happen again.

[unblock]

44. this is indeed a TERRIBLE idea

the most obvious flaw is that it goes into effect if states representing a mere MAJORITY the 538 electoral votes join in. that would give the REMAINING all-or-nothing states HUGE power.

if you're going to do this, far better would be to just get the polical will to enact a constitutional amendment. but then, good luck with that.

the fact of the matter is that the electoral college doesn't get it wrong very often, and is a (normally) great protection against fraud in partisan states.

[Sparkly]

45. No, think about it again.

If a MAJORITY of electoral votes are matching the MAJORITY of the popular votes, the remaining states wouldn't matter. They could all go to the loser of the popular vote, and still have no effect.

[unblock]

55. i see, read the op too quickly.

though the fraud argument still holds. you just know some republican's gonna win texas with more votes than people....

[Sparkly]

71. That's a separate problem. nt

[twiceshy]

46. Do we really want NY and LA to decide every election?

Let me just say the founders had more wisdom in their collective little finger than the entire pathetic "leadership" in both houses, the executive and the judiciary's combined fat corpulent disgusting money grubbing bodies.

[Sparkly]

48. We want the PEOPLE to decide, and the people in NY and LA deserve equal say

to those who live in less populated areas.

Do they get to pay less in taxes? Then they should have the same rights to representation.

And, the founding fathers only allowed white men with property to vote. They didn't get everything right from the start, in practice.

[Marrah_G]

94. More and more I am leaning towards the thoughts that we are just too big

The country has a real split social, economical and political ideas. The system was set up for the east coast. 13 states. 13 small states. Now you have less populated big states forcing smaller more populated states how they are going to live. I don't think that was ever the intention of the founding fathers. We have lost the much of each of our state's individuality. My gut tells me that the time will come when this great land splits into 4 or 5 smaller ones. Fairness and representation are simpply lost in the sea of 300 million people.

okay, done with my pre-coffee early morning ramblings :)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

51. Aaaargggh, you're still thinking in EC terms

If there's only a popular vote, everybody's vote counts the same. It's NOT a winner-take-all system. Get your facts straight before you go off.

No city or state is 100% D or R. Not one.

Under a non-EC system, most of the votes of New York City would go into the D column, but a few would go into the R column. Los Angeles would have a more even split, b

Eventually, the votes of East Podunk, adult population 100, would be counted. Its 75 R votes and 25 D votes would be added to their respective columns.

Some states are predictably D or R, which means that the presidential votes of the opposite party don't count at all under the EC system. Why should a Utah or Idaho resident vote in a presidential election at all when they KNOW that their states EC votes will go to the Republicans?

Without the EC, the TRUE political hue of each state would be reflected. Even if a candidate got a majority of the votes in New York, Texas, California, Illinoise, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, and Florida, he still wouldn't necessarily win, because the votes of the people who voted against him would also count.

Think of your state gubernatorial election. You don't vote by county electoral votes, do you? A candidate might be popular in your largest city, but he will never win all the votes in that city, so a strong rural vote can outweigh his urban votes.

[twiceshy]

53. I'm just saying, be careful what you wish for, you might just get it in spades.

Sure Bush benifited (maybe illegally on vote count in FL) from the current EC system, but if it had been Gore, in the same situation, no one would have complained except the Repubs. The key point is representation of the states. Flyover country still needs to be heard and represented. We are a union of States although much of that has been lost in the centralization of governement in the Fed. I prefer the individuality of state with their unigue personality. Why does everything have to be so monochrome, shopping mall, grey?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

63. So it's okay with you if the candidates spend ALL their time

in the "battleground" states?

EC proponents often speak fondly of the giving the "flyover" states representation, but under the current system, they get NO attention from the candidates, because they have only 3 electoral votes and/or because they're automatically D or R.

Dennis Kucinich did unusually well in Hawaii, because he was the ONLY candidate to visit during primary season.

[RufusTFirefly]

68. That's why I support the EC but proportionally awarded

It's not black or white -- Electoral College or no Electoral College. Proportionally awarded electoral votes would address alienated voters in all states and help to minimize battleground states, while retaining a voice for those states that would otherwise be marginalized or ignored. (I might add that instant-runoff voting would be good for democracy as well.) Again, keep in mind that this country, although made up of individual voters, is called the United States.


(By the way, by citing the Kucinich example, you seem to be supporting retail politics. I support it as well. Alas, it would probably go away entirely -- it's already on its last legs -- if the EC were abolished.)

[Sparkly]

73. If people have "proportional" say in national elections based on where they live,

then how about they have "proportional" taxation for the same reason? :eyes:

What's wrong with making SURE the loser of the popular vote doesn't take office again?? Why should some people's votes weigh more than others? Because of "retail" issues? Too bad! That's far less important than the principle at stake here.

[last_texas_dem]

56. This is good news

I'm not sure if there will ever be enough state legislatures (legislatures from states totalling 270+ Electoral College votes) to get this passed, but this is definitely a step in the right direction. I'd love to see the EC abandoned during my lifetime but I'm not exactly counting on it. Too many people give that particular institution way too much credit, as if it has never caused major complications or anything like that.

Also, the way the law would work, mainly considering how it would go into effect, seems to confuse far too many people, and will likely be a major obstacle to the legislation passing in more states. (I don't have any better way to go about it; in fact, I think the MD legislation is the best way to go about electing our Presidents by popular vote rather than the EC. I just think the fact that so many people don't grasp the conditions that would have to be in place for the law to take effect complicates its path.)

[Senator]

62. Bush v. Gore 2040: Scalia rules Texas Takedown "good enough"

Scalia Rules Texas Takedown "Good Enough"
Associated Press
Article Launched: 12/12/2040 10:38:04 AM EDT

WASHINGTON - In the first use of the controversial "judicial veto," Chief Justice Eugene Scalia refused to allow the full Supreme Court to consider the validity of the Texas presidential election results. The move by Scalia puts an end to speculation about the possible recusal by himself and the Associate Justices, nearly all of whom were appointed by members of the Bush family.

Democratic candidate Karenna Gore Schiff reserved further comment until her legal team could study what she referred to as "this edict." But President-Elect John Ellis Bush hailed the move as "a victory for all true Americans, who value finality, simplicity, and stability over the concerns of those remain nostalgic for the days of democraplexity and mob rule."

Scalia, as is his custom, issued no written ruling but simply confirmed to the Associated Press that he instructed the Clerk of the Court to refuse to accept any pleading from any party on the matter. When pressed to explain the basis for the move he quipped that the controversial Texas results "ought to be good enough for everybody -- and now it is."

Many members of congress expressed shock at the notion that a candidate who clearly lost in 49 states could still be installed in the White House simply because the Secretary of State of Texas reported official results in which Bush won that state by more than 20 million votes, thus triggering Electoral College provisions in other states that overrule their electorates in favor of the national popular vote winner.

Experts predicted that efforts in several states to set aside their Electoral College provisions -- based on the assertion that Texas's audit-trail-free system allows no mechanism to confirm even these most unbelievable "official-ish results" -- were doomed to failure.

Similarities to the 2000 Election Blessing -- over which dozens of so-called "lefterrorist" activists remain in federal prison for publicly calling "Stolen" -- continue to be made, albeit in muted tones. ...

---

[ProudDad]

75. Great!

Now on to public financing of all elections.

[Auntie Bush]

81. In keeping with our tradition...VT should be next to adopt that law.

:woohoo:

[drp146]

85. Let's hope it's the start of a national trend!

Let's lobby our state legislators to follow suit!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

107. YES!

[DuaneBidoux]

110. This is tough. Originally there were very good reasons electoral college as well as the Senate were

created.

The design of the current system is actually quite politically brilliant. It is easy, of course, to remember the 2000 election and how Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote and it is easy to decide we want that to never happen again but the founding fathers had very good reasons for this design.

Originally the principal reason these bodies were designed was to avoid sectionalism developing. It is theoretically possible that 3 or 4 or 5 states (let's say for the sake of example) have 60% of the population (and let's suppose they are eastern states)(and incidently this is a condition that did exist when the country was being founded). The other 46 or 47 might have 40% of the population.

If the 4 or 5 states with most of the population began voting together on issue that impact the whole country but benefit them alone, then they would actually leave the rights of many citizens behind. This would gradually begin to split the country into two regions. Imagine if you were living on the west coast with sparce popuation and all your tax money was going to benefit those 3 or 4 states.

Same with the Senate. No matter what 2 Senators represent each state, even when the population is tiny. This is also why small states are overrepresented in the electoral college (because two of the electoral representatives are based on two senators). But the Senate, that does not proportionally represent has long elections cycles, making them more deliberative and less swayed by short term special interests and issues. The House, which representes population is perfectly representative with short election cycles and more prone to being swayed by interet groups.

Again, it is actually quite a brilliant design. It may well be that it no longer serves the needs of the country--but the issue is actually quite complex.

[ProudDad]

114. EGAD, You are right

That must be why my tax dollars and that of my neighbors here in California are returned disproportionately to pipsqueek states and is NOT all returned to us.

I guess that "evens" things out! :sarcasm:

What a brilliant design....


I think it is time to try Democracy...

[DuaneBidoux]

115. It's true I gave a standard political science explanation for the design and did put in one adjectiv

e (brilliant). I don't really have an opinion on this issue.

But to completely ignore the risk of sectionalism is not reasonable too.

As I said, the system may well not serve the US currently, but it is important to remember that although we call ourselves a democracy we were in fact founded as a republic. Perhaps too it is well time to change that (especially if we claim to be fighting for "democracy" abroad).

Ironically, when you hint that giving more money to the federal government than California gets back it is actually very similar to the argument you would get from a conservative over taxation generally. One of their biggest arguments is that it is not right for them to have to pay taxes to support others when they don't get their fair share back. But that is the essence of politics: to redistribute money from one or more groups to others to benefit the entire nation (again, this is theory).

Personally I believe that California (as any state) should have the right if they decide it is not in their interest to belong to the Union, to secede. Then they would not have to give more to the federal government than they get back. If California has this right then that is democracy.

I live in Texas, which is one of the only red states to actually give more than they get back but to me that is part of the right and privilege to call myself American (not to mention that I am against virtually everything the state government here, dominated by freak wingnuts, would do with the tax money they didn't have to pay to Washington).

[Sparkly]

118. Fine, but this has to do with representation and the democratic process

Let's accept the fact that California -- and other states with densely populated urban centers that generate money -- pay more in taxes than they get back, to subsidize poorer, often more rural, sparsely-populated states.

Then can we stop gasping over "What if LA and NY decided elections?!?" As if that would be some horror.

Is it right for the people of these areas to support others with taxes, and not have an equal vote? Why are they effectively punished for where they live? Why don't they have equal say in who represents them in the federal executive?

As for "we're a republic," fine -- states get to work out how they hold their elections. They get to decide how their electoral votes are cast.

This isn't about taxes EXCEPT that there's a convenient shift of logic with taxes vs. the electoral college: When it's taxes, we're a democratic republic; when it's elections, we're a democratic republic. It's not consistent. It says, "We'll take your money but for God's sake, you can't decide elections!! Why, that'd be MOB RULE!!"

One way or the other.

[DuaneBidoux]

124. Absolutely. You make very valid points. But I think your post confirms what I have tried to say:

The issues are complex. Political theorists who understand a great deal more than I do have taken many different positions on these issues (including yours). I think your post confirms my point: it is indeed complex.

But if you were in some sophomore poly-sci course at a university you would have had most of the points I have given you made by the professor. He probably also would have touched on your points as a counterpoint.

A good example of all this is the U.S. Post Office. If we are mailing a letter from L.A. to Houston it doesn't cost $.37. It probably costs closer to 5 or 6 cents. Why then do we pay $.37? So that people in no place Iowa can send a letter to no place Idaho for a price that can be afforded (and hold the country together as one).

It's real easy for wingnuts to say "privatize the post office." If you point out that letters from Idaho to Iowa would then probably cost $5 dollars they don't have much to say.

We have a similar issue going on right now in the private sector with telephone vs. cable companies. Telephone companies are required by law to provide service everywhere equally. When cable companies were allowed to provide phone service then telephone companies howled that it gave the cable companies unfair advantage and they cried to deregulate the phone companies (which Republicans of course supported). The answer however wasn't to deregulate phone companies (leaving rural residents with no or poor service) but to regulate cable companies making sure they must provide equal service to everyone.

[Sparkly]

126. Taxes, postage, cable... I think you're making it more complex than it needs to be.

If you keep comparing it to unrelated issues in an effort to draw parallels, you end up with a whole lot of "complex" lines.

However, if you can draw one SUPERSEDING factor, one element that trumps all others, it becomes clear.

That element in this case is democracy. The right to representation, the sanctity of votes, the will of the people, the government of, for, by the people -- everything else is secondary to that.

[IndianaGreen]

112. The Electoral College should be abolished, or at a minimum

we should get rid of the winner-take-all, and have each state's Electoral Votes apportioned according to popular vote. By apportioning electoral votes, states like Indiana would have some of our votes going to the Democratic candidate instead of having nearly half the voters being disenfranchised.

[Josh]

133. In close elections, that wouldn't necessarily work either -

if it was a close election and you had a bunch of smaller candidates getting their share of the votes, or Nader's 2.7% in 2000, you could wind up with no one candidate getting a majority of the electoral vote, and suddenly it's off to the House of Representatives every four years.

Unless we also changed it so that under this new system a candidate only required a plurality of the electoral college, rather than a majority.