Whacking the Electoral College
 

Maryland has invented a very cool little end-run that would eliminate the Electoral College without need of a constitutional amendment.

Here's how it works: States pledge their delegations to vote for the national vote-winner.

BUT, it doesn't kick in until the states which have signed onto the plan total 270 or more electoral votes. (So for example, even though Maryland has signed on, they will send their delegates for whoever wins Maryland.)

Thus far the states that have signed on are about 1/2 the electoral votes they need to get to 270. I think if Obama wins the electoral vote and Rmoney wins the popular vote, it'll be all over -- both sides will have done it once in recent memory, and with Democratic states having kicked off the plan, Pubbies will sign on when their guy gets the short end of the electoral stick.

How cool is that?

PFnV

Re: Whacking the Electoral College
 

No thanks.

Re: Whacking the Electoral College
 

Not cool at all. It's called the National Popular Vote movement and I doubt it will ever come to fruition. You think the residents of a state like Massachusetts would be happy sending their electors to a Republican based on how the rest of the country voted? No way, Jose.

Re: Whacking the Electoral College
 

How about a state like California? I believe they're signed on already.

What's the downside? That the good people of Ohio and Florida (okay, and maybe Virginia,) won't dictate the terms of every campaign?

It can't affect this election. Now tell me what you think about it in principal, and why anybody in his right mind would be against it. Massachusetts would have to vote for a Republican, Texas would have to vote for a Democrat, whatev. That's baked in, but it's baked in on both sides.

PFnV

Re: Whacking the Electoral College
 

Yeah rather than amending the constitution the way the system has worked for 200+ years people look for a gimmick to circumvent the document.

Pretty sad

Re: Whacking the Electoral College
 

The current system has worked pretty well for a couple centuries now. This change, if enacted, would not solve the problem you purport you want to solve. It would simply shift the candidate areas of concentration from certain areas to other areas.

Plus, this would create EXTREME incentives to generate voter fraud. I imagine states like CA and MA would report a vote tally of something like 99% democrat and 1% republican.

Re: Whacking the Electoral College
 

i always thought the electoral college was retarded and it should have been a straight up popular vote

Re: Whacking the Electoral College
 

Leave it to Maryland to circumvent the Constitution.

At least they're thinking outside the box, though.

I'm not a huge fan of the electoral college, but let's work the process through proper channels.

Re: Whacking the Electoral College
 

I don't see how it's not the proper channels. My understanding is that the states determine which electors to send; the electoral college would hardly be able to circumvent the popular vote otherwise, by definition.

If a state doesn't want to sign on, that's fine.

The electoral college -- which Jefferson called a "blot" on the Constitution -- was designed to inflate the importance of states with small populations. It was a compromise more than 200 years ago, when the Delawares of the world thought they needed power vis a vis the Virginias of the world. To get them to sign on, all sorts of special privileges applied -- including diluting the vote of the more populous states.

I don't know why the people living in those states can't band together and take back equal voting rights. And what's more, I don't see what about it contravenes the constitution (hence no need for an amendment.)

It's elegant in its simplicity.

PFnV

Re: Whacking the Electoral College
 

Coming down to Ohio and Fla is a good thing as these 2 states are pretty much a cross cut section of the country plenty of diversity representing the country in every aspect.
As opposed to New York and California being the dominate states to where candidates would only campaign.
A candidate would do nothing but campaign and govern and legislate for the benefit of NY and Cal. if election were decided by popular vote.The middle and the south of the country would never see a candidate either in office or campaigning, and have no reason to appeal to that area of the country whatsoever.
This is why precisely why the founding fathers went with the electoral college so the above would be avoided.
Coming from somebody like you who howls and whines about fairness you would think you would be glad that we were a constitutional republic and not a pure democracy. But its really and always has been about politics with you leftist anyway.