Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In voting to end electoral college, Maryland dares to go where Schwarzenegger wouldn't
Los Angeles Times ^ | April 12, 2007 | George Skelton:

Posted on 04/12/2007 8:41:31 PM PDT by FairOpinion

The governor of Maryland did Tuesday what the governor of California should have done last fall: sign a bill making his state the first to begin junking the electoral college.

At least, chuck the electoral college as it has evolved. Circumvent the relic, render it moot and elect America's president by popular vote.

The bill makes Maryland the first state to sign an interstate compact that obligates each signatory to cast all its electoral votes for the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. The compact won't go into effect unless it's signed by enough states to comprise a majority of the electoral college vote.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed an identical bill after studying the measure for, it seemed, about three seconds. "It disregards the will of a majority of Californians," he said in his veto message, pointing out that the state's electoral votes could be awarded to a candidate most Californians didn't favor.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: California; US: Maryland
KEYWORDS: california; elections; electoralcollege; maryland; popularvote; schwarzenegger
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last
Attempts to eliminate the electoral college continue. What was the governor of Maryland thinking?!!!!
1 posted on 04/12/2007 8:41:32 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Differing attention from your governator is understandable. Read it.
2 posted on 04/12/2007 8:44:42 PM PDT by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi

?????

You disagree with Arnold, you think he should have signed the CA Dem bill abolishing the electoral college?!


3 posted on 04/12/2007 8:46:36 PM PDT by FairOpinion (Victory in Iraq. Stop Hillary. Stop the Dems. Work for Republican Victory in 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Read the bill.


4 posted on 04/12/2007 8:48:03 PM PDT by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Maryland Enacts Law for Electoral College Change

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/4/11/124420.shtml

Maryland has become the first state to enact a measure that would circumvent the Electoral College and award the state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide.

Gov. Martin O’Malley, a Democrat who was elected in November, signed the bill on Tuesday. It would not take effect until states that collectively have 270 electoral votes – the minimum needed to win a presidential election – pass similar measures.

As NewsMax reported in September, supporters of the move, called the “Interstate Compact,” seek to nullify the Electoral College without going through the difficult process of amending the U.S. Constitution.


5 posted on 04/12/2007 8:48:56 PM PDT by FairOpinion (Victory in Iraq. Stop Hillary. Stop the Dems. Work for Republican Victory in 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

He cannot abolish the electoral college. We both know that.


6 posted on 04/12/2007 8:49:36 PM PDT by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi

REad my post 5.


7 posted on 04/12/2007 8:50:13 PM PDT by FairOpinion (Victory in Iraq. Stop Hillary. Stop the Dems. Work for Republican Victory in 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Good luck, wefty limps!!


8 posted on 04/12/2007 8:50:34 PM PDT by Rembrandt (We would have won Viet Nam w/o Dim interference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
"What was the governor of Maryland thinking?!!!!

He's a leftist DemonRAT. He doesn't think, only feels.

9 posted on 04/12/2007 8:51:52 PM PDT by StormEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

I love the electoral college.


10 posted on 04/12/2007 8:52:32 PM PDT by se_ohio_young_conservative ("Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." Barry Goldwater)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
A quote from your post #5

It would not take effect until states that collectively have 270 electoral votes – the minimum needed to win a presidential election – pass similar measures.

A worthless bill.
11 posted on 04/12/2007 8:53:08 PM PDT by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Here in Massachusetts, the significance of the positive value of the Electoral College will become more recognized as we lose more Seats.

They were all against it in 2000, but by 2020, they’ll be hailing its virtues.

12 posted on 04/12/2007 8:54:17 PM PDT by Radix (You might find my other Tag Lines for sale on E-Bay.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi
"supporters of the move, called the “Interstate Compact,” seek to nullify the Electoral College without going through the difficult process of amending the U.S. Constitution."
13 posted on 04/12/2007 8:55:30 PM PDT by FairOpinion (Victory in Iraq. Stop Hillary. Stop the Dems. Work for Republican Victory in 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
A majority of the Electoral College are required to adopt this before it becomes law. Maryland is easy pickins of course but this is ridiculous.
14 posted on 04/12/2007 9:00:33 PM PDT by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

It will never happen and that is a great thing. Thank you again Founding Fathers :)


15 posted on 04/12/2007 9:00:36 PM PDT by jveritas (Support The Commander in Chief in Times of War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Small states will live to regret changing the current system. However, they have the authority to send their electors however they wish. I don’t think they’re the first, though. Doesn’t Maine apportion their electors by vote? (And someone else, I think...can’t remember the other state.)


16 posted on 04/12/2007 9:02:14 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
(And someone else, I think...can’t remember the other state.)

Nebraska

2 votes go to the statewide winner and 1 for each Congressional District.

To date neither state has split its votes, but Maine has often come close to a 3-1 split.

17 posted on 04/12/2007 9:24:40 PM PDT by rhinohunter (Even I have a better chance than Hagel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Oh, I want so bad for the Republican to win the popular vote and lose in the EC until Maryland comes to the rescue.

The sound would be like the squealing of a million stuck pigs. "The people of Maryland must not be disenfranchised! Repeal this racist law!" It would be sweet beyond belief.

18 posted on 04/12/2007 9:26:29 PM PDT by denydenydeny ("We have always been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be detested in France"--Wellington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhinohunter

My memory can’t recall anything in the Constitution that requires a winner-take-all system. I don’t know the history of the electoral college in this matter, though.

Did the early republic also have a winner-take-all system?


19 posted on 04/12/2007 9:28:52 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Any upstanding right leaning citizen of Maryland can and should take this to court. It’s real simple.

Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution.....

“No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation;”

I’m going to assume that means with other states as well. This “first” is clearly unconstitutional. But what else is new with the leftist thinking?


20 posted on 04/12/2007 9:34:41 PM PDT by MissouriConservative (We accommodate other cultures at the expense of ours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

You can bet that if a Republican gets a majority of votes, Maryland will ignore this law and cast our Electoral College votes for the Democrat who will surely win here.


21 posted on 04/12/2007 9:42:17 PM PDT by VanShuyten ("By the simple exercise of our will, we can exert a power for good practically unbounded, etc, etc.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
The honest way to negate the Electoral College, would be to amend the Constitution, as was done with the change to direct election of Senators. Although, I still don't understand how they got the state legislatures to give up the power to pick Senators.

But one can always count on the "Progressives" to do an end run around the Constitution, rather than do the honest thing.

22 posted on 04/12/2007 9:58:07 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Constitutionally, the legislature has broad latitude to appoint the electors. However, once they declare a popular election to determine the electors, as all 50 legislatures have done, they become very constrained by Federal Election Laws.

I'm no expert on Federal Election Law, but I doubt that Maryland's scheme would hold up to a challenge.

23 posted on 04/12/2007 10:08:34 PM PDT by rhinohunter (Even I have a better chance than Hagel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: VanShuyten
You can bet that if a Republican gets a majority of votes, Maryland will ignore this law and cast our Electoral College votes for the Democrat who will surely win here.

The MD legislature should just cut to the chase and cease to have popular election of Electors. Then they can just appoint the Electors themselves. Hard to imagine that the MD leg would ever be anything other than rat-controlled so they could guarantee MD EVs to the rats in perpetuity.

This would be entirely constitutional too.

24 posted on 04/12/2007 10:17:20 PM PDT by rhinohunter (Even I have a better chance than Hagel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Count me in as the one who said, in 2000, that the Dems were going to cheat all across the country. The ‘popular vote’ is so easily manipulated that I doubt that any Republican would manage a win anywhere ever again.


25 posted on 04/12/2007 10:35:28 PM PDT by originalbuckeye (I want a hero....I'm holding out for a hero (politically))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi
Even if a majority of the electoral college does adopt this interstate method of casting their electoral votes, they still must deal with Article I Sec.10 of the US constitution which states and get the approval of Congress. Article I Sec.10 states that:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

26 posted on 04/13/2007 1:55:34 AM PDT by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: old republic
Lots of other problems too. like, the disenfranchisement of the maryland voter, and what constitutes the national vote total since its done differently in every state..eg no national standards for conducting the vote....

But, facts and realities don't get in the way of a demorat movement.... witness global warming.

27 posted on 04/13/2007 4:35:03 AM PDT by cb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: cb

this will never hold up but in omalley’s mind... disenfranchisement of the voter is too obvious to any self-righteous maryland court and will not hold water...

there will be no need though to implement a lawsuit, the dream of a 2000 redo will only hurt the dems...

teeman


28 posted on 04/13/2007 5:15:40 AM PDT by teeman8r ( (optional, printed after your name on post):)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Article II Section 1

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

If Maryland chooses to appoint electors based on the outcome of the popular vote.......they may be within their rights..........

Interesting.

29 posted on 04/13/2007 5:26:26 AM PDT by WhiteGuy (GOP Congress - 16,000 earmarks costing US $50 billion in 2006 - PAUL2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Article II Section 1

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

If Maryland chooses to appoint electors based on the outcome of the popular vote.......they may be within their rights..........

Interesting.

30 posted on 04/13/2007 5:26:27 AM PDT by WhiteGuy (GOP Congress - 16,000 earmarks costing US $50 billion in 2006 - PAUL2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy
But to be honest with their people, they will have to tell them their vote is not going to decide Maryland's electors. Their votes are just being dumped into the mythical "popular vote" pool. Maryland's electors are going to be chosen by NY, TX, CA, FL. What a great way to suppress voting.

So what if one state decides not to publish a popular vote total? For example, they don't count the absentee ballots unless the race is close enough that they'll make a difference. Can Maryland force that state to violate its own election laws just so the "popular vote winner" can be know? If that state refuses, and the popular vote is not know, how will Maryland allocate its electors? By its own popular vote? But they told the voters a different story, that their electors would not be determined by Maryland's votes.

If there's popular vote confusion and one key state decides to allocate its electors based on its own popular vote, then the compact falls apart because there aren't 278 electoral votes being decided by the national popular vote anymore. Again the voters went to the polls under false pretenses and that would be contestable.

Perhaps Maryland will develop a finite-state machine to inform the voters what they are voting for. If A, B or C become the final state, you're voting for Maryland's electors. If D, E, F or G result, then you're not. Got that?

31 posted on 04/13/2007 6:24:50 AM PDT by Dilbert56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert56

Your points are good and valid.

I’m not debating the practical ramifications of their decision.

My forst thought was simply, “Is this action constitutional?” It appears that it certainly could be.

The decisions made by the citizens of Maryland are theirs alone to make, good or bad.


32 posted on 04/13/2007 7:18:35 AM PDT by WhiteGuy (GOP Congress - 16,000 earmarks costing US $50 billion in 2006 - PAUL2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: All
Here’s a scenario. Unlikely, but not impossible. Candidiate A narrowly wins the popular vote, say by 500,000 votes nationwide. In those states that comprise the compact states of the 270 electoral votes given to the overall popular winner, Candidate B actually garners more votes. In the remaining states, the vote is overwhelmingly for Candidate A. In this case, ONLY the citizens living in the compact states have had their votes ignored.
33 posted on 04/13/2007 7:32:49 AM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy
I"ve been thinking about the constitutionality of this idea. I’m not a lawyer, I don’t play one on TV and I think clearly, so maybe I don;t belong in the courthouse, but here's my thought.

The Constitution guarantees a republican form of government, while also allowing states to select the method of selection of electors. However, in this case, they are not selecting but rather delegating the choice, at least in part, to the voters of other states. That violates the republican form of government, as the electors represent only voters within the state. It’s as if California decided to award the electoral votes by a three man committee of the state’s governor and secretary of state, and the mayor of New York City. It violates the principles of representation.
34 posted on 04/13/2007 7:41:56 AM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie
"I"ve been thinking about the constitutionality of this idea. I’m not a lawyer, I don’t play one on TV and I think clearly, so maybe I don;t belong in the courthouse."

Yeah, ditto!

You make a good point, this one might end up in court.....

35 posted on 04/13/2007 7:54:07 AM PDT by WhiteGuy (GOP Congress - 16,000 earmarks costing US $50 billion in 2006 - PAUL2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

bump


36 posted on 04/13/2007 5:55:34 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy
If Maryland chooses to appoint electors based on the outcome of the popular vote.......they may be within their rights..........

How about if they base the appointment of their electors on the popular vote of another state? That violates the first two clauses of the 14th A., and the guarantee of a Republican form of government for each State. Not to mention the Interstate agreement clause.

37 posted on 04/13/2007 6:09:30 PM PDT by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Here is the proverbial picture worth 100 words on why basing the Presidential election on popular vote is a really bad idea.


38 posted on 04/13/2007 6:16:29 PM PDT by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

The governor of Maryland Lilmarty O’Mally once said George Bush was a greater threat to America than Osama Bin Laden.

Lilmarty and the hard core left running Maryland would eliminate a multiparty political system if they could get away with it.


39 posted on 04/13/2007 6:31:01 PM PDT by silverleaf (Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird
How about if they base the appointment of their electors on the popular vote of another state? That violates the first two clauses of the 14th A., and the guarantee of a Republican form of government for each State. Not to mention the Interstate agreement clause.

It's technically not an agreement. Each state can claim to be acting unilaterally given these criteria.

I think this is clearly constitutional. The phrase "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" is pretty clearcut.

40 posted on 04/13/2007 7:15:55 PM PDT by zendari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird

How about if they base the appointment of their electors on the popular vote of another state?

It is unclear if this is the case in MD, but if that were the case, this would probably end up in court.


41 posted on 04/14/2007 2:47:01 AM PDT by WhiteGuy (GOP Congress - 16,000 earmarks costing US $50 billion in 2006 - PAUL2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: cb
It is very dangerous to create the possibility that could throw confusion into the electoral process because it could cause a huge dispute which could create a sense of illegitimacy (especially if there is a legitimate difference in legal interpretation of convoluted voting laws). In such an atmosphere of illegitimacy and extreme factional contention, multiple people claiming to be victors (especially if two intensely opposed factions view their candidate as being the rightfully elected candidate) could in a worst case scenario cause civil war. Maryland's law just creates to many constitutional and problems (especially since it has a trigger that could be triggered at any time (even after an election has already occurred but before the electoral college has voted. Could you imagine what would happen if in theory an election (like the 2000 election) was in which one candidate won the electoral college bud did not win the popular vote, but another state adopted Maryland's electoral college law the day after the election but before the electoral college voted and triggered these new electoral college rules and changed the winner of the election?)
42 posted on 04/14/2007 6:44:34 PM PDT by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: zendari
It's technically not an agreement.

It most certainly is an agreement between States. Read the text of the bill. It specifically calls it such.

43 posted on 04/15/2007 2:33:07 PM PDT by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy
It is unclear if this is the case in MD, but if that were the case, this would probably end up in court.

Not unclear at all. The bill says that if the people of Maryland vote for a slate of electors sworn to Candidate A, but the popular vote of the other states is for Candidate B. then B will get the electors. Thus, Maryland's electors may easily be decided by the voters of another State. Would that end up in court? You betcha. Would it do so before causing a Constitutional crisis that makes Florida 2000 look minuscule? Not likely, since there has to be an after the fact suit by a person with legal standing.

44 posted on 04/15/2007 2:38:15 PM PDT by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: old republic
Could you imagine what would happen if in theory an election (like the 2000 election) was in which one candidate won the electoral college bud did not win the popular vote, but another state adopted Maryland's electoral college law the day after the election but before the electoral college voted and triggered these new electoral college rules and changed the winner of the election?)

According to the bill, the 270 EV trigger has to be met in June (July? I can't remember exactly) before the election. Once triggered, a State cannot withdraw until after the next effected election.

45 posted on 04/15/2007 2:41:40 PM PDT by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird

ok.

Interesting.


46 posted on 04/15/2007 2:54:02 PM PDT by WhiteGuy (GOP Congress - 16,000 earmarks costing US $50 billion in 2006 - PAUL2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

How to end the Republic.


47 posted on 04/15/2007 2:57:22 PM PDT by bmwcyle ( Freep Fox they drop the ball on GOE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird

Interesting, thanks for the information, but there is a serious problem with the alleged deadline in the law. The legislature’s powers are defined in its constitution and only an amendment to the constitution can change the defined powers of the legislature or restrict its powers. (Imagine, for example, the outrage if Congress passed a law changing the way that we vote for our representatives in the House, surely it would be held unconstitutional). In other words this law is unconstitutional under its state constitution because the law places a limitation on the power of the legislature without amendment to its state constitution. Thus it is conceivable that a legislature could ignore this laws provisions and change its electoral law even after the deadline.


48 posted on 04/15/2007 5:49:29 PM PDT by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: old republic; WhiteGuy; zendari
FYI: Here is a link to info about the bill. You can D/L a PDF of the text from there.
49 posted on 04/15/2007 6:06:24 PM PDT by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: old republic

The relevant sections re: your question:

“THIS ARTICLE SHALL GOVERN THE APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTORS IN EACH MEMBER STATE IN ANY YEAR IN WHICH THIS AGREEMENT IS, ON JULY 20, IN EFFECT IN STATES CUMULATIVELY POSSESSING A MAJORITY OF THE ELECTORAL VOTES.

ARTICLE IV. OTHER PROVISIONS.

THIS AGREEMENT SHALL TAKE EFFECT WHEN STATES CUMULATIVELY POSSESSING A MAJORITY OF THE ELECTORAL VOTES HAVE ENACTED THIS AGREEMENT IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FORM AND THE ENACTMENTS BY
SUCH STATES HAVE TAKEN EFFECT IN EACH STATE.

ANY MEMBER STATE MAY WITHDRAW FROM THIS AGREEMENT, EXCEPT
THAT A WITHDRAWAL OCCURRING SIX MONTHS OR LESS BEFORE THE END OF A PRESIDENT’S TERM SHALL NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE UNTIL A PRESIDENT OR
VICE PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE BEEN QUALIFIED TO SERVE THE NEXT TERM.”


50 posted on 04/15/2007 6:13:16 PM PDT by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson