Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Maryland Morons

Way to make your state even less relevant, idiots!

Md. approves Electoral College change
ANNAPOLIS, Md. - Maryland is poised to become the first state to approve giving its electoral votes for president to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than to the candidate chosen by state voters.

The plan, passed Monday by the state House, would take effect only if states representing a majority of the nation's 538 electoral votes adopted the same change.

Some states are considering the move as a way to avoid a scenario in which a candidate wins the national popular vote but loses in the Electoral College, as Democrat Al Gore lost to George W. Bush in 2000.
Why do you want to avoid that scenario? Does it seem perverse? You idiots keep forgetting that Bush won the State vote. The split was then decided by the Electoral formula.

Just like the Senate is the State vote on bills and the House is effectively the popular vote on bills, BOTH have to work things out!

Why don't you stop sending Senators to Congress too, Maryland?

It's just short-sighted grasping for power by Democrats who still can't get over losing the election, and for that they lie and cut their own throats:
The final vote in the Democrat-controlled House of Delegates was 85-54, with only one Republican endorsing it. The Senate has already passed the bill, and Gov. Martin O'Malley, a Democrat, plans to sign it, said spokesman Rick Abbruzzese.

Supporters of the Maryland bill said the state, which has 10 electoral votes, gets passed over by presidential candidates who head to larger battleground states. Opponents say the change is unnecessary and constitutionally questionable.

Delegate Jon Cardin argued that the measure would make Maryland more relevant in the presidential campaign.

Do the math, zippy! The non-linear assignment of electoral votes to states favors smaller over larger, per capita, as electoral prizes.

Unless of course, with this law, you throw your whole lot with whomever wins 50.1% of the national vote anywhere else in the country, allowing them to ignore your issues in Maryland entirely and yet winning your votes even if zero people in your state vote for that candidate!

It is a failure of the educational system that people fail to realize that their States are not just subdivisons of Federal power (as counties and towns are just subdivisions of State power).

I tried to explain this before, on the purpose of the electoral college.


Blogger DemocracyUSA said...

Hmm.. If small states are so empowered by the Electoral College, why is it that nearly all of them never got even a token visit from the candidates or a single ad aired in their markets? And remember how all the talk in 2004 came down to which candidate would win two out of three big state -- Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

One-person, one-vote for president. It's not that tough a concept. It has absolutely no impact on the Senate, of course.

1:54 AM, April 03, 2007  
Blogger RDS said...

You're really clueless. Look for smaller states to have even less impact. It's simple math.

Clearly "one state, one vote" is too tough a concept for you to comprehend. If you knew anything, you'd understand that in the Constitution, not one but two different sovereign powers, the People and the States, ceded power to create the Federal government, and therefore BOTH get represented in Congress (with the two houses), as well as in choosing the President.

Senators were initially appointed by State government and not voted on popularly, and making that change by amending the Constitution to have a popular vote for them was the beginning of this slippery slope in which people like you undermine the whole concept of Federalism and have forgotten the importance of States. Welcome to mob rule.

9:15 AM, April 03, 2007  
Blogger RDS said...

I see of course from your name, and your blog, that you are an advocate for more pure democracy. The Founders knew too much pure democracy was a BAD thing (check your Greek history) and guarded against it. I find that not having to pander to the extremist views of small third parties is actually a Good Thing, though I too once went through an immature stage when I thought it would be cool.

Do you like unstable governments like on the Continent (hello, Italy)? That just makes it easier for extremism to gain control. Maybe that's your goal?

Your blog seems to support allowing convicted felons to vote. Hmmm. What's your real agenda? Begone.

9:26 AM, April 03, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home