Dyson Op-Ed

[awpitt (Premo)]

Originally Posted by MMDad

That is not true. Example: Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson run for President. Every Maryland voter votes for Sharpton. The majority of the U.S. votes for Jackson. All of Maryland's electoral college votes go to Jackson. The vote of every single Maryland voter is thrown out and given to someone who did not receive one vote.

And you think this is better?

Yes....


Even if all of MD’s voters voted for Sharpton, they would still be counted in Sharpton’s column in determining the overall national vote count. As it is now, if all MD voters went for Sharpton and MD’s ten electoral vote went for Sharpton and Jackson happened to win the 13 most populous states in the union thus garnering 270 electoral votes, MD’s vote would be meaningless. If this new legislation had been in place in 2004, Ohio wouldn’t have been such a big deal because GW Bush had a commanding lead overall on a national basis.

[awpitt (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Pete

This is true. Maryland needs to send it's slate of electors to vote how Maryland votes and not a consortium of "other states". I would be willing to entertain splitting up the electors by district instead of winner take all, but I am totally against any crazy ass ponzi scheme tying Maryland electors to ANYTHING other than how Maryland voters vote. I don't give a rats ass about Michigan, Mississippi or Rhode Island votes.

As I said before, my favorite choice would be for all states to follow Nebraska’s and Maine’s systems where electors are allocated based on congressional districts with the exception of two being allocated based on the state wide vote.

[2ndAmendment (Premo)]

Originally Posted by awpitt

... This would mean that candidates would have to pay more attention to Maryland. ...

No it wouldn't. It would mean the exact opposite. Candidates would not have to campaign in Maryland at all and they would still get Maryland's electors. That is total . The founders were very smart in developing the the Electoral College, certainly smarter than any of the bozos that are proposing this legislation. They are just grousing about Gore. Bush may not be ideal but think if we had Gore or Kerry.

[awpitt (Premo)]

Originally Posted by 2ndAmendment

No it wouldn't. It would mean the exact opposite. Candidates would not have to campaign in Maryland at all and they would still get Maryland's electors. That is total . The founders were very smart in developing the the Electoral College, certainly smarter than any of the bozos that are proposing this legislation. They are just grousing about Gore. Bush may not be ideal but think if we had Gore or Kerry.

Yes it would.

What you’re missing is that, currently, presidential candidates only have to go after voters in the 12 or 13 big states because it’s winner take all. Forget 2000. In 2004, there was a slight chance that Kerry could’ve won because of 60,000 “questionable” votes in Ohio. If Ohio had gone for Kerry, he would’ve beat Bush even though Bush had a nationwide lead of at least 1.5 million. Under this proposal, candidates would have to go after all voters because everyone would count within the national total and winning the most votes would mean winning that presidency. Yes, the founding fathers had visions but they weren’t perfect. The Electoral College was meant for a time when people and information rode on horse back.



http://www.nationalpopularvote.com

[2ndAmendment (Premo)]

Originally Posted by awpitt

Yes it would.

What you’re missing is that, currently, presidential candidates only have to go after voters in the 12 or 13 big states because it’s winner take all. Forget 2000. In 2004, there was a slight chance that Kerry could’ve won because of 60,000 “questionable” votes in Ohio. If Ohio had gone for Kerry, he would’ve beat Bush even though Bush had a nationwide lead of at least 1.5 million. Under this proposal, candidates would have to go after all voters because everyone would count within the national total and winning the most votes would mean winning that presidency. Yes, the founding fathers had visions but they weren’t perfect. The Electoral College was meant for a time when people and information rode on horse back.



http://www.nationalpopularvote.com

The Electoral College is not winner take all. The plan to make the electors follow the national popular vote is winner take all.

[awpitt (Premo)]

Originally Posted by 2ndAmendment

The Electoral College is not winner take all. The plan to make the electors follow the national popular vote is winner take all.

Not true. If candidate X wins Maryland by one vote, candidate X gets all ten of Maryland’s electoral votes. That’s winner take all. In a sense, you’re right about the national popular vote being winner take all; however, in that case, the winner take all would match the candidate who gets the most votes. That’s not true with the current system.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by awpitt

Not true. If candidate X wins Maryland by one vote, candidate X gets all ten of Maryland’s electoral votes. That’s winner take all. In a sense, you’re right about the national popular vote being winner take all; however, in that case, the winner take all would match the candidate who gets the most votes. That’s not true with the current system.

I mostly agree with the Nebraska/Maine idea, as it would be a far more representative vote were that enacted nationwide. I really see little if any advantage to what Dyson was speaking of in the link you sent. Wasn't the original intent supposed to be that a popular person, but one of bad moral character or other fault, would not be elected because the states would put people in the electoral college that actually were more educated about the candidates? We do have a republican form of government, not democratic, as far as the executive branch goes - that's what the constitution ensures us. Maybe the best bet would be to make no requirement for how the electoral college votes are allocated - just take ten random people off of the streets (say, one per county till you've gotten 'em all), give 'em the information as to how the state voted, and go from there?

[awpitt (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

Wasn't the original intent supposed to be that a popular person, but one of bad moral character or other fault, would not be elected because the states would put people in the electoral college that actually were more educated about the candidates?

Yes, you’re right about that but keep in mind that the Electoral College was conceived in a time when it might take days, sometimes weeks, for information to reach all parts of the country. There was also a great disparity between the education levels of various parts of the population. We live in a different time now. Originally, the state legislatures chose the two US Senators for each state. That changed in 1913. The President was originally inaugurated in March. That changed in 1933. Until 1961, the District of Columbia didn’t have electoral votes. And, until 1967, if a president didn’t complete his term, we would be without a vice-president until the next election. I guess my point is that things change. We don’t live in the 18th century when the Constitution was written. We’re in different times with a better educated population and with technologies that didn’t exist back in the time of the Constitutional Convention.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by awpitt

Yes, you’re right about that but keep in mind that the Electoral College was conceived in a time when it might take days, sometimes weeks, for information to reach all parts of the country. There was also a great disparity between the education levels of various parts of the population. We live in a different time now. Originally, the state legislatures chose the two US Senators for each state. That changed in 1913. The President was originally inaugurated in March. That changed in 1933. Until 1961, the District of Columbia didn’t have electoral votes. And, until 1967, if a president didn’t complete his term, we would be without a vice-president until the next election. I guess my point is that things change. We don’t live in the 18th century when the Constitution was written. We’re in different times with a better educated population and with technologies that didn’t exist back in the time of the Constitutional Convention.

I agree with all you're saying here. I actually think it was a bad idea to go away from states legislatures picking the senators. There was a real fear of recall for a rogue senator. I agree we're at a higher technological stage, but I'm not sure people use that to educate themselves on candidates. Ask the next 20 people you run into who the sec of state, or president pro tempore of the senate, or speaker of the house is. I think you'll be sadly surprised at the answers you receive.

I like the electoral college, but I like even better allocating those votes in some representative breakdown of how the state actually voted.

[awpitt (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

I agree with all you're saying here. I actually think it was a bad idea to go away from states legislatures picking the senators. There was a real fear of recall for a rogue senator. I agree we're at a higher technological stage, but I'm not sure people use that to educate themselves on candidates. Ask the next 20 people you run into who the sec of state, or president pro tempore of the senate, or speaker of the house is. I think you'll be sadly surprised at the answers you receive.

I like the electoral college, but I like even better allocating those votes in some representative breakdown of how the state actually voted.

You’re definitely right about folks being clueless about current office holders. A few years ago, I was a Cub Scout leader and I had the boys fill in the names of the states on a blank map of the US. They all did pretty well. Then, I took that same map to work and challenged co-workers to fill in the states. I was amazed at how few people could get more than half of the states correct.