Innovator Devises Way Around Electoral College

Re: Find Law site


And? The article you originally quoted form there is from the commentary section. Note the "writ": in the URL. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20041112.html

And if you go to the Findlaw Writ section you'll be greeted with

"These postings are for educational and information purposes only. They are not legal advice or legal opinions on any specific matters. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship between FindLaw, the author(s), or the publisher (Law Firm, Bar Association or other legal publisher) and you. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. The opinions expressed in the postings are those of the author(s), or the publisher (Law Firm, Bar Association or other legal publisher) and not those of FindLaw."

Maryland Takes the Lead
April 14, 2007
New York Times Editorial
Maryland Takes the Lead

As the nation braces for a long and numbing presidential election, the State of Maryland has done voters a favor by rejecting the Electoral College as a fossil in need of a democratic makeover. Gov. Martin O'Malley and the Annapolis legislature made the state the first in the nation to decide that its Electoral College members should someday be required to vote for the presidential candidate chosen by a plurality of the nation's voters, not according to the state's parochial tally.

The reform movement, driven by a bipartisan coalition called National Popular Vote, has a long way to go. But Hawaii is close to approval, and hundreds of legislators are sponsoring the change in more than 40 other states. It is an ingenious way around the fact that the alternative strategy of trying to amend the Constitution would require the approval of three-fourths of the states, leaving veto power in the hands of smaller states over-represented in the college.

The objection that reform would mean that rural interests would be ignored is a canard. The change would require candidates to present positions that galvanized all Americans. This is the truer and more certain path of democracy.

The Maryland law (.pdf) is rather odd. Electors would still be nominated by the political parties (sec. 8-503(a)), and a vote for a candidate is counted as a vote for the electors nominated by that candidate's party (sec. 8-504(b)(2)), but the state would certify as the winning slate of electors the slate of the party that won the largest number of popular votes in the nation. So (as I read it) if Party A's candidate gets the majority of the votes in Maryland but Party B's candidate wins the most votes nationwide, the state will certify Party B's slate of electors as the winner. In other words, the law, in that case, would require the state to certify as the winner the slate that receives less votes (statewide) than the loser.

Re: Maryland Takes the Lead


The sentence which i have highlighted above is an assertion which is not supported by even as little as a reasonable explanation by the author as to why this would be so. There is no inferential basis for such a statement in the proposed plan, since a successful appeal to urban populations could easily provide the popular vote necessary to require the electors in sparsely-populated states to cast their electoral vote for a candidate who had ignored rural populations.

As for what is or is not the path to democracy, we live in a democratic republic, not a democracy. The constitution guarantees that all the states will have a republican form of government, not a democratic form of government.

EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A State-Based Plan For Electing President
Read free EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A State-Based Plan For Electing The President By National Popular Vote

http://www.every-vote-equal.com/tableofcontents.htm

EVERY VOTE EQUAL:
A State-Based Plan For Electing The President By National Popular Vote
By John R. Koza, Barry Fadem, Mark Grueskin,
Michael S. Mandell, Robert Richie, and Joseph F. Zimmerman

DOWNLOAD THE COMLETE BOOK (2.9Mb, 646 pages) - includes all chapters, forwards, appendices, biographies, bibliographies, and the index.

DOWNLOAD JUST THE MAIN CHAPTERS (1.9Mb, 424 pages) - includes all chapters, forwards, biographies, bibliographies, and the index, but no appendices (222 pages)

DOWNLOAD JUST THE APPENDICES (1.1 Mb, 222 pages) - includes just the appendices of the book.

READ OR DOWNLOAD PORTIONS OF BOOK BY CLICKING ON PDF FILES BELOW

- CHAPTER LEVEL TABLE OF CONTENTS
- DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS
- BIOGRAPHIES
- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
- FOREWORD BY JOHN B. ANDERSON
- FOREWORD BY BIRCH BAYH
- FOREWORD BY JOHN BUCHANAN
- FOREWORD BY TOM CAMPBELL

- CHAPTER 1
Introduction
- CHAPTER 2
How the Electoral College Works
- CHAPTER 3
Three Previously Proposed Federal Constitutional Amendments
- CHAPTER 4
Two Previously Proposed Approaches for State-Level Action
- CHAPTER 5
Background on Interstate Compacts
- CHAPTER 6
The Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote
- CHAPTER 7
Strategy for Enacting the Proposed Interstate Compact
- CHAPTER 8
Legal Issues Concerning the Proposed Interstate Compact
- CHAPTER 9
Administrative Issues Concerning the Proposed Interstate Compact
- CHAPTER 10
Epilogue

- APPENDICES
- BIBLIOGRAPHY

- INDEX
- TITLE PAGE