The state Senate likely will approve a bill that would sidestep the Electoral College and promote the national popular vote in presidential contests.First, Sen. Raskin, as a law professor, should know better. The U.S. Constitution provides for the Electoral College to choose the President. The only way to change that is through a Constitutional Amendment and that is not what is being proposed. What is being proposed is a part of a nation wide effort to pass legislation to change the way the selection of the president is done, through state legislatures, which have no power to effect this change.
After two days of debate that at times resembled a grade-school civics course, senators decided yesterday to call a final vote on a plan to award Maryland's 10 electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, not the state's popular vote.
Senators could vote as early as today.
The idea is being considered across the country as a way to pull the teeth out of the Electoral College and avoid a scenario in which a candidate wins the most votes nationwide but loses the election, as Democrat Al Gore did in 2000.
"Why shouldn't we have a direct popular vote where every vote counts equally?" asked Sen. Jamin B. "Jamie" Raskin, a Montgomery County Democrat and law professor who sponsored the bill.
Supporters also say the Electoral College should be scrapped because it leads to presidential candidates spending much of their campaigning in a few battleground states. Candidates often ignore states where presidential contests aren't considered close, no matter how many electoral votes they wield. (Emphasis added)
Only two ways exist to amend the Constitution. Congress, by a vote of 2/3 of both the House and Senate can propose amendments. Atlernatively, 2/3 of the state legislatures can call for a constitutional convention to amend the Constituion. After that 3/4 of the state legislatures must approve the amendment for it to become effective. However,
[l]ike the Arkansas plan, Maryland's would take effect only after enough states representing a majority of the country's 538 electoral votes adopt it. That provision makes it unlikely the popular-vote plan would be in effect for next year's presidential election.So this change is clearly unconstitutional.
But the plan is also doomed to failure for political reasons. If a straight popular vote replaced the electoral college, Maryland and other small states would not benefit in the least. Candidates would spend their time where teh voters are and that translates to the same states where they spend their time now: California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois. These seven states hold the most voters and these seven states would probably decided the fate of most elections.
The other political issue that will not survive a Constitutional Amendment is that the popular vote would benefit the Democrats in the short term, a matter that is known by many Republican controlled legislatures and you can rest assured that the GOP will find at least 14 GOP controlled or shared controlled legislature to kill any amendment.
While we have to suffer the fools of the Maryland legislature, but at least they can be entertaining fools on occaision.
4 comments:
PEACE Matt. Words froma man you dont know... I can feel that your an intelligent man eyes wide open, and will not be lied to. At times I know you feel that most if not every person in a position of power in this government are behaving upon personal agendas. Because the power of the people has been stripped. Such as them presenting our rights as mere priveledges.Right to Bear Arms, Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Peacefully Assemble, Right to Travel, etc. These same persons in the positions of power are constantly created ways to strip the people of their power.PEACE AND LOVE.
The National Popular Vote plan is clearly constitutional -- even opponents like American Enteprise Institute's John Fortier agree. The Constitution gives states absolute authority over how to allocate electors and allows them to enter into interstate compacts. Case closed.
Maryland is one of a super-majority of states that are ABSOLUTELY, completely, utterly ignored in presidential campaigns. They get nothing from the current system. Maryland legislators would be irresponsible to accept the current system.
Let's have one-person, one-vote for our one natioanl office. A huge majority of Americans support that. States are empowered to give it to them. Kudos to Maryland.
Ok, I have looked at the bill in a little more detail and the manner in which Maryland is looking to assign its electors under this bill is constitutional, essentially, they will wait for the final popular vote results and give the electoral votes to the popular vote winner. Fine, it is consitutional.
But I still stand by the assessment that Maryland will continue to be largely ignored in the race for popular votes. Under a popular vote plan, all the smaller states would continue to get ignored because they don't have enough votes to make a big enough impact on vote totals. The battle for votes will still occur in larger states and major metropolitan areas where most votes reside. Sorry that math simply doesn't work.
The math is that every vote would be equal no matter where it is cast. To win elections where every vote is equal, it is foolish to ignore people But right now, 35-40 states and all the people can be completely, utterly ignored. The current situation is indefensible -- our founders would be shocked to find that states had adopted rules that created such inequality.
Post a Comment