"Liberalism in all its forms is evil and should be rigorously challenged on a daily basis."

-Robert Frost-

OMG. Why not just throw away the Electoral college then? Be honest people and go for what you really want!

Matt,

You may remember that the Founding Fathers included various provisions in the Constitution so that it could be amended. The Electoral College is an antiquated barrier reflecting the Founding Fathers' fear of the masses directly electing a tyrant, in the same way that Senators originally were not directly elected. Not only is the system antiquated, but it has polarized the country, provided disproportionate political power to closely divided states, and fostered the inherently crappy two-party system. I see no reason why it should be continued, and I've felt this way long before 2000.

Gar Wood

Man,

Robert Frost didn't say that.

Gar Wood

Isn't this un-Constitutional???

"Democrats, by and large, are void of either conscience or personal responsibility."

-C.S. Lewis-

Gar you and other liberals just don't like it that Bush won. Maryland seems to feel that they can change that. What happens when a Republican wins the popular vote?

So let me get this straight... Even if MD votes 100% for the democRAT presidential candidate, they want their electoral votes to go the republican candidate should he/she win the popular vote thereby rendering their denizens' votes irrelevant? This is a good thing? Subjugating smaller states' votes to the will of larger states? This is what the founding fathers wanted? Just because the two of the three most populous states vote for the insane party does not mean this is good political strategy. It absolutely flies in the facr of the founding principles of this country (like 2 senators for each state).

Is it me or are the democRATS incredibly stupid, devious and self-serving political beasts?

I really don't understand how this is "not playing by the rules." The "rules" say nothing about how a state chooses their electors.

You're making even less sense than usual.

KJ: Can you imagine the chaos if we had to have a national recount? You know that's exactly what would happen if a Republican won.

President Clinton won both of his terms with less than 50% of the popular vote due primarily to strong showings from third-party candidates such as Ross Perot. The Electoral College prevented a one-on-one runoff because Clinton received the required Electoral Votes both times. One wonders about such a runoff between Clinton and former President Bush would have turned out without Perot in the mix.

The Founding Fathers chose the Electoral College because it is the most fair method for the only nationally elected office; even Senators are chosen by their respective State only. Smaller States such as Vermont and Louisiana would receive little attention without the Electoral College; candidates would simply concentrate on population rich States such as California and Texas.

The measure would award Maryland's 10 electoral votes to the national popular vote winner

This would mean that the country as a whole would be deciding the electoral vote in a particular state, in effect diluting the votes cast by that state's voters.

Ironically, had MD done this in 2004, it would have given their electoral votes to Bush, even though the state's majority went to Kerry.

If the intention is to help Democrats, the measure seems counter-productive, since MD has leaned toward the Dems for the past few election cycles. For this reason, a Repub-favoring national popular vote overuling a Dem majority state vote seems more likely than vice versa.

There are two states that split their electoral votes by congressional district, and award the two votes that correspond to the senators to the candidate with the most popular votes in the state. Perhaps Electoral College reform along those lines might be worth considering.

The intent of the Electoral votes is to ensure that each state has a say in the selection of the President.

Otherwise, if you go by popular vote, then a candidates would need to focus only on California, Florida, NY, Penn, Ohio, Michigan and Texas and be assured they would be elected President.

I think Maryland is taking away the rights of the voters of Maryland in voting for the President.

For example.. if in 2008 Maryland voters overwhelming vote Democrat and the GOP Presidential canadiadte has the majority of the votes for all states, Maryland will be forced to ignore the people they represent and cast there electoral votes for the GOP Presidential candidate. and that is not what the Maryland voters voted for.

I know Dems are still pissed off about 2000 election but is that really worth destroying a a system based on representation to one based on popularity.

I would rather the President represent each state aor the majority of states.. instead of the most populous states.

GOP4ME: Is it me or are the democRATS incredibly stupid, devious and self-serving political beasts?

I think it's you. As the article says, "The plan would only take effect if states representing a majority of the nation's 538 electoral votes decided to make the same change." Do the math... if states with more than half of the total electoral votes cast those votes for the winner of the national popular vote, than that candidate wins the presidency. And it wouldn't matter if that person was a Dem or a Rep.

Sounds good to me. I've never been much of a fan of the electoral college concept. It never really worked out like it was supposed to, anyway.

KJStrouble,

I said nothing about the 2000 election. You appear to embrace the Electoral College simply because it enabled Bush to win in 2000. But support or opposition to the Electoral College should have nothing to do with partisan politics because it does not benefit either party. In 2000, many were speculating that the end result could be inversed, with Gore losing the popular vote but winning the Electoral College. People said the same thing about Kerry in 2004. The idea that someone, Democrat or Republican, could win the White House without winning the popular vote, because of a system that has no relevance today, makes no sense.

Gar Wood

Ok, since you're such an expert on "the rules", why don't you point out to me the part of the constitution that says the Supreme Court gets to decide who wins an election after officials like the governor and AG in the state in contention has campaigned and promised to deliver said state to the eventual winner?

I'll be waiting...

If folks want to remove the electoral college I'm all for them trying. Personally I think removing the electoral college makes the individual states useless. Who cares about the smaller states if all you have to do is focus on New York, Los Angeles, San Fransisco and the like?

If all states passed this law as written no one would be able to enact it. It specifically prohibits the enacting of it's provisions unless the other states enact their provisions first. The other states couldn't enact their provisions either, no one could take the first move if they were following the letter of this poorly written law.

Without the electoral college, New York City and L.A. will be choosing our Presidents from now til infinity.

But I guess that's what the dems want.

Yet another in the never ending attempts by Democrats (IDIOTS) to change the Constitution without amending it!

RE: "You may remember that the Founding Fathers included various provisions in the Constitution so that it could be amended."

Yes it does. The CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS to Amend the U.S. Constitution is spelled out in Article V.

Article V states:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

It's not enough that Democrats use their activist law-giver judges to ignore the Constitution, to change it, and to Amend it in a manner that totally disregards and ignores the Amendment process proscribed in the Constitution itself!

Democrats clearly oppose and ignore the U.S. Constitution!

AAR

What happens when Maryland votes 60% Democrat (as usual) and the nation votes 50.01% Republican? Why, ALL of Marylands votes go to the Republican.

That is what you are defending? Discounting the electorate of a state? Don't be stupid.

Thankfully, this really isn't going into effect unless a majority of the other states make the same electoral vote distribution law:

The plan would only take effect if states representing a majority of the nation's 538 electoral votes decided to make the same change.

"Without the electoral college, New York City and L.A. will be choosing our Presidents from now til infinity."

Leo, Gozer,

You really prefer that Florida and Ohio choose our Presidents from now until infinity? Kerry overwhelmingly won NYC and LA and still lost the presidency. Eliminating the Electoral College will force Republicans to campaign in the cities and Democrats to campaign in the countryside, reducing the polarization in this country and ultimately benefiting our democracy.

Gar Wood

Matt,

This is the stupidest post yet from a bushbot

If the presidential elections were still run as the founding fathers layed it out Kerry would be Vice President instead of your precious Cheney.

San Francisco Chronicle, July 24, 2006...

"A Stanford University computer science professor has come up with an idea to circumvent the more than 200-year-old Electoral College system..."

"Koza's scheme calls for an interstate compact that would require states to throw all of their electoral votes behind the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of which candidate wins in each state. The plan doesn't require all 50 states to join, but a combination of states that represent a majority (at least 270) of the electoral votes. If the largest states join in the agreement, only 11 would be needed."

"Proponents say Koza's proposal is ingenious because it would avoid the immensely difficult task of trying to get rid of the Electoral College system by amending the U.S. Constitution."

"...Koza is proposing to use two provisions in the Constitution to circumvent the system: interstate compacts and the states' power to decide how they award their electoral votes."

"Koza, a registered Democrat..."

Leave it to the elitist Democrats to work extra hard to develop INNOVATIVE and INGENIOUS "SCHEMES" to CIRCUMVENT, IGNORE, and ABORT the Constitution!

...

Leo,

It could well come down to New York and Los Angeles electing the president... but they oppose developing a missile defense system.

As it stands now, however, 11 states could band together and set the rules for the remaining 39. That is clearly not what the Constitution meant or intended.

I guess the next thing the Democrats (IDIOTS) will work to abolish is the Senate! Perhaps the Democrats can pass similar laws that will require their senators to vote exactly, and in the same ratio and percentage as the House on each and every issue, since the House is based on population and the Senate is not!!!

AAR

Speaking of the senate

The way the constitution was written the senators weren't elected by popular vote either.

It might be the only way the GOP could take back the senate

A State's Electoral College does not have to vote for who won the State's popular vote. Never has. I learned this in 8th grade US History class. I remember being surprised by this.

"The electors meet in each State on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (December 13, 2004). A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President and Vice President. No Constitutional provision or Federal law requires electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their State."
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/procedural_guide.html

If the Supreme Court permits this Democrat SCHEME to occur, EVERY voting machine or box in EVERY voting precinct in EVERY county or parish in EVERY state will become a battle ground and contested by both candidates in the courts. Recounts, extended by charges of fraud, could go on for weeks or months.

Perhaps Congress should pass some laws to allow the current President and administration to remain in office for weeks or months beyond the expiration date of their term. If we are really lucky, candidates can start campaigning for the next election while waiting for a decision on the last one!

Further, EVERY state should have a say in the manner in which elections are held and voters verified in all of the other states, to prevent Democrat voter fraud, voting early and often, illegals voting, and the dead voting -- as happens in heavily Democratic areas!

Voter fraud and the lack of necessary measures to prevent it would no longer just affect the votes from a particular state, since those fraudulent votes could determine how votes are cast in the remaining "scheming" states!

Democrats would no longer be trying to cast fraudulent votes in just their heavily Democratic states and districts. Voter fraud throughout and anywhere in the entire United States could well decide how votes are cast in other states. Voter fraud throughout the entire United States could well become key, critical, and the established norm to winning the election!!!

AAR

And Republicans would work to illegally suppress votes in not just Ohio and Florida but all 50 states now

Aitch,

Did you read or learn anything that made you think or believe the Constitution and the electoral process meant or intended to disregard and ignore the votes cast by the people of a state, choosing instead to cast their electoral votes based on how another state voted?

If you believe that is the intent, perhaps you can provide the source!

AAR

The essence of the electoral college is to ignore the will of the majority (the voters) and substitute it with the will of a few (the electors)

AAR,

You can argue all you want about what the Constitution was "intended" to mean, but no constitutional provision expressly prohibits Maryland's arrangement of electoral voters in this way. Similarly, one might argue that Article II was not "intended" to apply to women, but because there is no provision indicating otherwise, women can serve as President.

Gar Wood

Gar, by arguing the Constitution doesn't prevent Maryland from granting electors this way, then you must also believe that the constitution doesn't prevent Maryland from making a law that grants all of it's electors to the Democratic party no matter how it's voters voted.

Just face it, the first time a state grants it's electors to a candidate that the majority of voters in that state did not vote for, the US Supreme Court will step and and void it (most state courts will void it as well). Lawsuit after lawsuit of voters claiming their civil rights were violated, the election would be bogged down for years.

The Democrat's SCHEME is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

The founders of this nation, those who wrote the Constitution, and those who ratified it clearly intended to provide a balance between a strong central government and the rights of the states, recognizing the importance and rights of the individual states. This was incorporated to insure that the state entity itself was recognized, carried some weight, and was not based solely on population.

As one website (SparkNotes.com) puts it...

"The Constitution set forth a form of federalism that balanced the authority of the state and national governments. The state legislatures would elect the members of the Senate, as well as select delegates to the Electoral College, which selected the President. Furthermore, the Constitution could be amended by a vote in favor of amendment by three-fourths of the state legislatures. The writers of the Constitution intended to increase the power of the national government, but they were wary of taking too much power from the states."

"The final form of government represented a compromise between those who advocated power for the states and those who advocated power for the national government. The Constitution set forth a government far more empowering to the states than either the Virginia Plan or the New Jersey Plan had suggested. Undoubtedly, the Constitution established a government system under which the national government was far superior to that of the state, but the final result was a republican balance, which acknowledged the need for some level of state autonomy."

This concept is exemplified by the fact that each state, regardless of size or population, is given two senators and two votes. The concept is expressed in the Constitutionally prescribed process whereby the Constitution is to be Amended -- by a vote of "three fourths of the several states" -- and not by total popular vote. The concept is further expressed by the way the Electoral College is structured, allocating the votes by to each state by a combination of their House members -- determined by their population -- and their Senate members -- assigned two per state regardless of their population.

The Constitution clearly intended for the state, the entity itself as well as the population of the state to determine the state's vote in determining the our laws, in Amending the Constitution, and in voting for the President. The Constitution clearly provided for and intended for smaller, less populous states to have a vote and votes disproportional larger than they might otherwise have based on their population alone.

The Democrat SCHEME to circumvent the Constitution and the Electoral College clearly violates the intent of the Constitution and the protections afforded to the less populous states by right of their disproportionally larger vote and representation established by the Constitution.

The Democrat SCHEME to circumvent the Constitution and the Electoral College clearly violates both the "state's rights" and those of the residents and voters of the less populous states.

The Democrat's SCHEME CAN and WILL be declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL because, it violates the Constitutionally established rights and votes of the less populous states, their voters, and their citizens!!!

The Democrat's SCHEME CAN and WILL be declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it allows the more populous states to gang up on the less populous states and deprive them of their Constitutional vote and representation!!!

AAR

OK "Liberals" - try it. Overturn the Constitution. FYI - you should have done a better job up front denying 2nd Amendment rights. We were afraid that was all about creating a tyranny - turns out we were right.

Amp,

The essence of the Electoral College is to incorporate and combine the vote of each state (the entity itself) with the vote of the people within that state, as the Constitution intended, and just as the Senate is not based on population.

That is the concept upon which Congress and our lawmaking itself is based -- a mix of population based votes (the House) and state based votes (the Senate). It was set up that way to keep California and New York from wielding all of the power by virtue of their population and trampling the less populous states like Wyoming and Alaska (who don't have all of your pollution, greenhouse producing, global warming people and cars!).

The Electoral College combines the number of members in the House with the two members of the Senate in each state to determine each state's relative "share" or portion of the vote allocated to that state by the Constitution. Each state gets some votes because of the number of people who live in the state. And each state gets some votes just because they are a state! That's the word and intent of the Constitution. Arnold and California do not rule the United States as you Democrats might think and like.

To ignore and circumvent the Electoral College negates the state's portion (the entity itself) of that Constitutionally established and prescribed vote!

By allowing the more populous states to "gang up" on the less populous states, you violate the very concept established by and provided for in the Constitution. You deprive the "state itself" of it's share of the vote!

That's UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

I am confident the states whose Constitutional "state rights" are ignored and trampled by your little silly Democrat "scheme" will be right there with their lawsuits to stop it!

AAR

AAR - you'd think so. But Maryland is one of them. Definately on the "small state" side of the debate.

Note - they HAVE all but banned new firearms. Hoping no doubt the existing ones will have rusted away by the time their power seizure scheme comes to fruition.

And Republicans would work to illegally suppress votes in not just Ohio and Florida but all 50 states now

B/S alert!!! Way to go, Amp--inject a little crap into an otherwise healthy debate. So we stole Ohio and Florida? Maybe your side stole PA, IL, WI, MI, and several others, right? I have just as much proof as you do, moron.

None...

Art. II, S. 1, provides that each state's electors be chosen as the state's legislature directs. So said the Supreme Clorida's legislature convened in special session in Dec., 2000, to pass a law, if necessary, directing Flrida's electoral vote to Bush. The Court's decision in favor of Bush obviated the need so no action was taken in Florida.

Even though the following is from Wikipedia, it's well stated:

"The Electoral College is intended to dilute the votes of population centers that may have different concerns from the majority of the country. The system is designed to require presidential candidates to appeal to many different types of interests, rather than those of a specific region or state. The College enabled the Founding Fathers to deftly incorporate the Connecticut Compromise and three-fifths compromise into the system of choosing the President and Vice President, sparing the convention further acrimony over the issue of state representation."

"In the Federalist Papers No. 39, James Madison argued that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of federal (state-based) and national (population-based) government. The Congress would have two houses, one federal and one national in character, while the President would be elected by a mixture of the two modes, giving some electoral power to the states and some to the people in general. Both the Congress and the President would be elected by mixed federal and national means."

The Constitution was specifically written to preclude and prevent exactly what the Democrats are so diligently scheming and conniving to accomplish.

As usual, Democrats don't know history and don't understand the Constitution. Their professors and instructors are too busy working on schemes to circumvent and ignore the Constitution rather than abide by and follow it.

Perhaps those professors just don't know any history other than their own revisionist version. Perhaps those professors just don't know or understand the Constitution. Perhaps those professors just don't care what the Constitution says, because it doesn't suit their objectives and goals. The latter is more probable and likely!

When it's too difficult, too inconvenient, too little instant gratification, or when the Constitution just plain prohibits what the Democrats want, they plot, scheme, connive, and otherwise work to undermine and destroy the Constitution. But when the Constitution provides something the Democrats want, they fight like little demons to make sure it is followed exactly as their law-giver judges decide!

This is just the latest in the never ending and never ceasing Democrat attempts to make a complete and utter mockery and abortion of the Constitution!

AAR

Kahn,

Actually, in terms of population, Congressional votes, and electoral votes, Maryland is among the top 21 states. Only 17 states have more electoral votes than Maryland's 10. Only 7 states exceed Maryland's electoral votes by 10 or more. Those states are: California (55), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27), Pennsylvania (21), Illinois (21), and Ohio (20).

Years ago, my grandfather said that if liberals couldn't take away American's weapons, their next goal would be to register them. We see the Democrats working toward both goals everyday.

Once all weapons are registered, Democrats will have a total list which their storm troopers can use in their unconstitutional house-to-house search and seizure of those weapons.

AAR

The founding fathers put in place the electoral college because in those days, news didn't travel fast, and so they didn't want an uninformed population deciding who was the best candidate, but instead had the population elect electors. The electors were from their areas, so the people knew them reasonably well, and were well-informed, and so better fit to choose the prez. Obviously, this argument no longer applies, with TV, Radio, Blogs, Newspapers, and other forms of incredibly fast communication/news spreading. I am apalled that you Republicans would scream at MD for trying to fix a huge problem in our country's election system.

ThELefTYFoOL

ThE LefTY FoOL,

You might want to change your name to something a little less descriptive!

Try reading some REAL history -- not the revisionist version you were apparently taught (or maybe was tossed in your general direction) by your liberal professors.

Spend a little less time at the keyboard displaying your ignorance of REAL American history and the Constitution ...the Constitution which guarantees you the right to so liberally and freely use that keyboard of yours to post misleading and false information ...the Constitution that you are so quick to ignore, disregard, and abuse!!!

AAR

Speaking of BS/alert Keffer

Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?em&ex=1176523200&en=4d4f310643a3d7ba&ei=5087%0A

HAHAHAHAHA

after all your cries about voter fraud and stealing elections your most compentent leader- Bush can't find voter fraud in six years at the helm

Amp- show us the denial of vote figures.

Paranoia strikes deep AMP. Maybe some therapy would help.

AAR and navydad, did you notice how AMP changed the subject suddenly when we started making points? This is a learned tactic. It means we're up against a trained liberal. Probably has little red stars on his underwear.

Most do Kahn. Especially when it comes to discussions of fortitude.

Kahn,

Interesting you should say that. I've noticed the same thing quite often.

There are certain topics, issues, phrases, and even words that draw the raving, frothing Democrats (Liberals) like a swarm of agitated hornets, not only here, but at other Conservative sites which tolerate their nuisance comments.

It seems as though groups of Democrats (Liberals) constantly read, monitor, and scan the sites for discussions or comments on their of their pet causes and liberal agenda. Most of the time, they're like a chronic low grade infection and fever -- ever present and annoying, and doing what they can to clutter, cloud, dilute, and muddy the sites with their usual and repetitive propaganda, misinformation, misdirection, and Pavlovian phrases.

However, let the topic or discussion switch to one of their dogmatic liberal causes, coordinated campaigns, or targeted issues and people and they swarm in like a hyper-agitated bunch of angry hornets, fighting like mad to protect their "paper nest", and trying to sting everything and everyone who dares speak against their agenda, beliefs, and lies!

Certain topics seem to generate a call for reinforcements and we see new or infrequent propagandists join the attack. They may even call in some of their more skilled and trained "professionals" to help with the attack at times, or when they want to take a more "scholarly" approach and apply more subtle brainwashing and indoctrination strategy -- especially when spinning one of their "believable lies."

But even with their most fanatical and dogmatic causes, there seems to be certain facts, lines of thought, and issues they prefer not to discuss or won't address at all. When that happens, their comments suddenly begin to decrease, dry up, and eventually cease entirely. It's almost like they were sprayed with a can of RAID!

This behavior indicates that they realize there are ways to counter and even reverse the effects of their propaganda, both here and with the American public.

AAR

Most people don't know that one state, Nebraska, has a unicameral (one house) legislature.

Nebraska's state legislature is also the only nonpartisan state legislature in the nation.

Although, Nebraska's partisan and nonpartisan primaries are held at the same time, candidates for the Unicameral legislature are listed in the nonpartisan section of the primary ballot. The political party of candidates for the Unicameral legislature is not listed on the election ballot.

The two candidates who obtain the most votes in the primary election face each other in the general election for the seat. Only rarely does a petition or write-in candidate wins a seat.

Nonpartisanship is not confined to the election the legislature. The legislature operates and functions on a nonpartisan basis. Partisan political caucuses do not exist. Partisan affiliation and alignment do not control legislative organization or action. Coalitions on legislation tend to be fluid, based on issue alignments and personal and geographic relationships among members rather than on party affiliation.

AAR

LefTY FoOL,

Stop listening to the misleading propaganda and revisionist history from your Democrat (Liberals) "handlers" and indoctrinators!

RE: "The founding fathers put in place the electoral college because in those days, news didn't travel fast, and so they didn't want an uninformed population deciding who was the best candidate... Obviously, this argument no longer applies, with TV, Radio, Blogs, Newspapers, and other forms of incredibly fast communication/news spreading. I am apalled that you Republicans would scream at MD for trying to fix a huge problem in our country's election system."

The fact that the number of Senators for each state is fixed at 2 each, and not based on the state's population as in the House clearly shows the Founders, and those who wrote and ratified the Constitution, specifically meant for the individual and sovereign states themselves to have a major role in our Nation's political process, government, and law making. The reasons are too long to discuss here, but you can do some reading for yourself!

The Electoral College was created to elect the President for two reasons rather than by direct, popular voting.

First: The Founders did not trust the judgment of the people to select the best and most qualified people to run the nation. Rather than a direct election, they intentionally (after much debate and consideration) created the Electoral College as a buffer or safety net between the popular vote and the votes to select the President. The Founders were fearful that a well-spoken but not well-intentioned individual could flatter the people and win their support. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. They hoped that a secondary body, such as the Electoral College, would not be as susceptible to such attempts at manipulation.

Second: The Founders intentionally gave extra power to the smaller states -- to give the states (the sovereign states themselves) a voice in the presidential election. The principle of federalism was and is a critical feature of the American political system. The electoral college is part of compromises made to insure that the smaller less populous states also had a role and affect in choosing the president, and weren't overpowered and trampled by the larger, more populous states. The Electoral College in effect recognizes the role and importance of state themselves and gives the states an important position in the selection of the country's leader. The Framers sought to recognize and maintain the position of states as important entities in the American political system. The Electoral College gives each state same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress, thus no state could have less then 3.

Without the Electoral College, the Constitutional role of the states themselves in election of the President would be ignored (no big deal to a Democrat). The significance of states and the candidates' competition for support in key less populous and "swing" states would disappear. Candidates would be inclined to simply run nationwide ad campaigns and visit large population centers.

Without the Electoral College, candidates would need only to run and concentrate their campaigns in the large Liberal and Democrat cities like New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco and ignore the wishes and interests of the rest of the nation and the individual states!

As to your comment about Maryland wanting to "fix" what Liberal Democrats believe is a problem and to "fix" a system that assures their largely Liberal Democrat areas elect the President... there is a process to do just that. It's provided by and established in the Constitution itself. It's called a Constitutional Amendment, whereby Congress or the States approve an Amendment and send it to the states for ratification!

The Democrat's SCHEME to use Maryland's approach to GET AROUND the INCONVENIENCE of following the Constitution clearly demonstrates the DEMOCRAT'S BLATANT ignorance and DISREGARD for the CONSTITUTION!

Contrary to what you may think, the effects, poor judgment, whipsawing, and constantly fluctuating and changing opinions, views, and support created by the misinformation, lies, and opinions in "TV, Radio, Blogs, Newspapers, and other forms of incredibly fast communication/news spreading" show that this nation's Founders were much more intelligent and forward thinking than today's politicians!

The Founders were absolutely correct to fear that well-spoken but not well-intentioned individuals (news sources and blogs included) could flatter, mislead, misinform the people and win their support. The Founders were absolutely correct to fear that someone (news sources and blogs included) could manipulate public opinion.

You are right that today's manipulation and threat comes instantly and continually from the liberal oriented television, newspapers, media, and those manipulative, misleading, and lying blogs you so foolishly depend on for your information and to mislead American voters!

AAR