Maryland is attempting to circumvent the US Constitution by passing state legislation that will give its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of how the state's results came out. That is totally opposite of the way that the electoral college process is supposed to work and basically nullifies the Constitution at the state level. Sorry, but it is a federal election, not a state election. Ergo, the election process should be dictated by the federal Constitution, not state law.I have heard a lot of criticism of the electoral college system since the 2000 election. Our founding fathers wrote the provision for the electoral college system for a reason. It was so that large states (by population) such as New York and California can not dictate to the rest of the country how the federal government works. It is so that each state has equal representation in proportion to overall population. That means that when liberal bastions like New York City or L.A. and San Francisco vote Democrat, while the majority of the nation (geographically) votes Republican, then the dense population cities can not kill off the remaining votes.
Democracy is mob rule. We are a republic, not a democracy. In a democracy, 51% can take away the rights of the other 49%.
2000 was not the first time that the candidate that won the popular vote did not win the electoral college system. I believe that it happened two previous times, as well. It is just that with mass media in place, Americans being less educated about how the government works, and liberals being pathetic whiners and sore losers, we have them trying to rewrite things to their advantage.
The system is in place for a reason. It was wisely put in place for a reason. The system works in the way it was intended. Leave it alone.
4 comments:
Please never again use the word "ergo."
The way you play fast and loose with the intent of the Founders is shameful. I think it's ridiculous you think you know what the Founders intended, and that they intended 2/3 of our states to be ignored in presidential election.
This is, as you say, a federal election, but that is not the issue at all. At issue are the terrible effects of awarding electoral votes the way most states do, and the harm it does to the country.
I've got news for you: if you think democracy is "mob rule," we already have it. The electors do not meet and deliberate like they are in Congress. They vote as they are told, and are usually legally bound to do so. We have a popular vote, but it's distorted by the winner-take-all rule in 48 states.
It's sad to say, but you're the one who spits on the Constitution with this one. Even if you dont' go off and read the Federalist Papers to actually get an idea of what the founders really though, you might sit down and read the Constitution.
It's not very long; I suggest you take a look at it.
I also find your concern for small states and rural areas to be fake, or as good as fake. You claim boldly that the current system protects them, but clearly have no idea. In fact, the current system harms small states and rural areas. That you disregard their right to be part of this important election is disgraceful.
In short: read the Constitution, read the legislation, disabuse yourself of the notion that you in any way understand the intention of the Founders, who, unlike you, were brilliant, and gave us the tools we need --already in the Constitution-- to change the system if we need to.
Well, Mr. or Ms. Anonymous, since you didn't have the guts to leave your name and contact information, I can only respond here.
Fast and loose and shameful? Have you ever taken a civics class? Have you ever read the majority of the founders' documents? I have volumes of them on my shelves, and yes, that includes the Federalist Papers, and I have read extensively from the materials I have in my library.
So, I spit on the Constitution for actually reading and agreeing with the Constitution? Ah, interesting. That is like saying a Christian spits on the Bible for reading and understanding the Bible.
Yes, the issue is INDEED that it is a federal election, considering the fact that I addressed an article about states attempting to subvert the Constitution.
No, I don't believe that the method of awarding electoral votes harms the country at all. It is JUST as it was MEANT to be. If it were not so, we would have been stuck with a truly harmful leader like Al Gore. I thank God for the electoral college.
No, my concern for the rural areas and small states is not fake whatsoever. Since you obviously don't know me or my background. you are an ignorant and arrogant putz for saying so. I grew up in a very small state with only four votes in the electoral college. I knew how it benefitted my state, and I was thankful for it.
So, you think I haven't read the Constitution? Well, Mr. or Ms. Noguts Anonymous Hubris, I am one of the few people you will run across who actually has read it, keeps a copy on his desk, on my pda, bookmarked on my computer, and actually reads it.
How the heck can you possibly state that I am disregarding the right of small states to participate in the election? Did you read the freakin' article I brought into question? Obviously not. If a state actually casts electoral votes in the way that the state voted in the majority, then that is doing EXACTLY the essence of that state participating in the voting process.
You have taken the typical liberal tactic of making accusations without reading first, and that is the disgraceful part.
You made a blatant contradiction in your viewpoint. You complain that the right to actually vote the way the states desire according to their OWN in state popular vote is disregarding their right to vote.
The hypocritical part of your comment is that you criticize me as not knowing the intent of the founders, yet you purport to comprehend it yourself.
In short: I HAVE read the Constitution. The proposed legislation goes contrary to it, which is a no brainer to be in contradiction to the founders' intentions, and the Constitution already has the system in place that works very well, thank you. We don't need to change the system, since it is working fine as it is. If the system needs to change, it should be changed via the Constitutional process, not via individual state legislation. DUH!
Your commentary is vacuous. You=PWNED.
And the word ergo is a wonderful word. Ergo, I like it. Ergo, it fine for it to be used in the English language. Ergo, I will use it to my delight. Ergo, I am doing so right now. Ergo, you=pwned.
By the way, for the rest of the blog readers, the best I can tell is that Mr. or Ms. Anonymous is from Ingleside, Maryland and was referred to my blog via an email. See below.
Domain Name comcast.net
IP Address 68.49.15.# (Comcast Cable)
ISP: Comcast Cable
Location Continent: North America
Country: United States (Facts)
State: Maryland
City: Ingleside
Lat/Long: 39.1073,-75.8724 (Map)
Distance: 280 miles
LanguageEnglish (United States)
Operating System Macintosh MacOSX
Browser Firefox Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.0.9) Gecko/20061206 Firefox/1.5.0.9
Javascript version 1.5
Monitor Resolution: 1280 x 854
Color Depth: 32 bits
Time of Visit Feb 20 2007 7:35:35 pm
Last Page View Feb 20 2007 8:09:05 pm
Visit Length 33 minutes 30 seconds
Page Views 4
Referring URL http://mail.google.c...=gp&ver=sh3fib53pgpk
Visit Entry Page http://troylaplante....rt-constitution.html
Visit Exit Page http://troylaplante....rt-constitution.html
Out Click http://bp1.blogger.com/_h7MWihqnf4c/RdsBAQCz4yI/AAAAAAAAACc/OUwDO0z96SQ/s320/usbycounty.gif
http://bp1.blogger.c...600-h/usbycounty.gif
Post a Comment