Everything is show these days, forget the substance.
In a similar move for the sake of publicity and the appearance of leadership, and presumably to get presidential candidates to pay more attention to the state, Texas just moved its primary up from March to February, because so many other states are doing it - all vying for early attention. One state, and I cannot now remember which (Arizona?) recently made the decision not to move its primary up, because they figured they wouldn't get any attention by doing it now that everybody else was. They thought they'd garner more attention by being the only late primary state.
And now this foolishness...
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.[...]
[Senator Jamie] 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.
So, he'd essentially say, "screw you" to the state of Maryland's voters if they didn't vote the way the national popular vote went? Does he plan on getting re-elected there in Maryland?
Other states are considering the change to avoid an election in which a candidate wins the national popular vote but loses in the Electoral College, as in 2000 when Democrat Al Gore lost to George W. Bush.
Al Gore lost to George Bush when the Supreme Court halted the legal process of vote recount in Florida. That's what happened in 2000. The change to avoid the possibility of a president losing the election after winning the popular vote would be to eliminate the Electoral College all together. To have your state's voters choose one candidate and then give their votes by way of the Electoral College to whoever gets the most votes nationwide is simply robbing your voters of their votes. How's that make anything better?
Hawaii's legislature recently passed a similar measure, sending it to Republican Gov. Linda Lingle. California lawmakers adopted the measure last year, but Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it.[...]
North Dakota and Montana rejected it earlier this year.
[...]
The plan would only take effect if states representing a majority of the nation's 538 electoral votes decided to make the same change.
So, it's essentially pointless anyway, huh?
Until the lemming effect takes hold.
What am I missing here? Surely I'm not understanding something, because this just doesn't make any sense to me at all.
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
As long as we've got two crappy corporate parties to choose from, it doesn't matter too much how it's done. The intent here, I think, is to implement a popular-vote election within the electoral college framework. If all 50 states did what Maryland proposes, the winner of the popular vote would win every electoral college vote.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why states don't go to requiring proportional electoral college voting. If a candidate gets 55% of the popular vote in the state, he/she gets 55% of the EC votes.
Actually, I think the original intent of the EC wasn't so bad. Vote for electors, and then they go to Washington and select the president. Let the campaign be two weeks of questioning by the electors, rather than two years of bribe-taking and smear ads. Have the EC use runoff voting, or maybe a "Survivor" style elimination process. Anyone, candidate or elector, who mentions a political party is disqualified, possibly executed.
Anyway, if all that happens is that Maryland goes to their proposed system, it means basically that everyone EXCEPT voters in Maryland gets two votes--one in their home state and one in Maryland. (Which is probably why it would be declared unconstitutional--on one person, one vote grounds.) Marylanders would be left with just their contribution to the national total--which is probably somewhat more significant than their votes are now.
you make some very good points, of course.
ReplyDeleteand "Marylanders would be left with just their contribution to the national total--which is probably somewhat more significant than their votes are now.
" is probably the point of the proposal.