Martin O’Malley Hints At Supporting Electoral College Abolishment [VIDEO]

[elleng]

At a happy hour for young professionals Tuesday night in Washington D.C., former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley intimated that he supports abolishing the electoral college.

When confronted at Baby Wale, a bar in the nation’s capital, by college activist Colin Byrd, 21, as to whether he would support a constitutional amendment to ditch the electoral college in favor of winner via popular vote, O’Malley hinted that he indeed would.

O’Malley, one of five Democrats currently running for the party’s presidential nomination, pointed to him signing into law the National Popular Vote bill, which made Maryland the first state to support the anti-electoral college movement.

“Well, as a matter of fact, our state — my state, became the first state to sign on to the popular vote movement, which says all of our electoral votes go toward whoever the winner was of the popular vote,” O’Malley told Byrd, a student at the University of Maryland. “So our state, Maryland, actual led in that movement.”

As of now, ten states along with the District of Columbia, have signed on to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which, if activated, would trigger presidential elections through popular vote rather than the electoral college.

O’Malley signed the legislation to make Maryland the first state to take such an action in April, 2007. Among other 2016 candidates, former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee also exhibited support for the change, having signed onto the pact in July, 2013 during his governorship.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/29/martin-omalley-hints-at-supporting-electoral-college-abolishment-video/

[still_one]

1. I am all for it, but it isn't going to happen. It requires a Constitutional Ammendment

[elleng]

3. Surely not easy BUT

every challenge requires a first step.

'The Maryland bill takes effect when states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes enact identical legislation. There are 538 electoral votes in total, and a majority is 270.

On April 2, the Maryland House of Delegates passed the National Popular Vote bill.
Washington Post story New York Times story Baltimore Sun story

On March 28, the Maryland Senate gave its final approval (third reading) to the National Popular Vote bill in Maryland (SB 634). The Senate bill was sponsored in the Maryland Senate by Senators Jamie Raskin (a professor of constitutional law at American University) and James Brochin.'

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=MD

[NobodyHere]

20. Not exactly

States can divvy up their electoral college votes however they like. So what would prevent a state from giving all their votes to whoever wins the national popular vote?

[still_one]

21. That is how most states do it now. Only two states divide up their votes, and award proportional

electoral college votes to the candidates. However, that wasn't what the OP was saying. The OP was saying doing away completely with the electoral college.

That is NOT about how state divide up their electoral college votes, most states as I said, it is within the state the winner gets all the electoral college votes in THAT state except two.

Those proposing getting rid of the electoral college would require a Constitutional amendment. Smaller state are unlikely to go for it, because they perceive it puts them at a disadvantage, thus it is unlikely to happen

[NobodyHere]

22. No state gives their electoral college votes to whoever wins the national popular vote

like I said in my post (as opposed to winning the state's popular vote).

But that would be the easiest way to bypass the electoral college without a constitutional amendment. You just need to get enough states together to create a majority of electoral votes. In fact there is a movement underway already but not enough states have signed on.

[still_one]

23. I didn't catch the "national popular vote" in your first post, I read it wrong

and for some reason thought you meant "a states popular vote"

My reading comprehension problem

With that said I do not see any state doing that, however, your point is taken, it would not require a Constitutional amendment in that case, but it would also give more importance to large population states, and smaller ones I doubt would appreciate that

Good out of the box sennario though. I like it

[Snotcicles]

2. I think I could get behind that one. nt

[askew]

4. Wow, that is a horrible idea and even stupider to run on before Iowa and NH.

If we went to a popular vote election, the only states that would see candidates are California, New York, Florida, Texas and Illinois. States like Iowa, NH and about 40 other states would be ignored during the election. Even more than are ignored now.

[dsc]

5. the fact is very few states matter now

In 2012 only the following states were campaigned for North Carolina, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

[askew]

8. That isn't true.

Virginia, Indiana, Minnesota , Wisconsin, Nevada, Oregon and Michigan were all campaigned in as well.

But, 2012 was a bad comparison because Obama was an incumbent.

In 2008, Obama and McCain campaigned in well over 1/2 the states.

If a popular vote went through, goodbye campaigning in 2/3rds of the states.

As someone who lives in a Midwestern state, it is more than annoying that our states are almost always ignored when it comes to politics. The electoral college is the only reason we get any attention. And doing away with that would be unpopular in almost every state except the top 8.

[mvymvy]

14. In 2012, 99% of attention on 10 states

Because of state winner-take-all statutes:

There are only expected to be 7 remaining swing states - Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire - in 2016. These states will continue to dominate and determine the presidential general election.

In the 2012 general election, 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only 10 competitive states (NC, FL, VA, OH, WI, NV, IA, NH, CO, PA) 2/3rds of the 2012 general-election campaign events (176 of 253) were in just 4 states (OH, FL, VA, IA). 38 small, medium, and large states were politically irrelevant. Presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion.

In the 2008 campaign, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA).

In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

[elleng]

7. He's not 'running on' it, askew;

he responded to a question, and provided facts about Maryland's experience.

[still_one]

12. Not necessarily. Large states already have more electoral votes than smaller ones, so in theory

it should not matter. In most states it is the winner takes all electoral votes. This can present an interesting situation in a state where if someone can win by 50.1% or 80% it doesn't matter, it is the same number of electoral votes. Another reason why turnout becomes so critical.

This allows one individual to win some states by large pluralities, and lose others by a small number of votes.

If voting was mandatory, the popular vote would correlate with the electoral vote. That is the reason I believe the republicans work so hard to suppress votes

[TheKentuckian]

13. The whole state by state election scheme should be thrown out. Pure national popular vote.

Every vote everywhere counts.

[mvymvy]

15. 38 states were ignored in 2012

In 2016, only the 2016 party winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion.

The political reality is that the 11 largest states, with 278 electoral votes, rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).
Utah (5 electoral votes) generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.
8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).


In a nationwide election for President, candidates would campaign everywhere—big cities, medium-sized cities, and rural areas—in proportion to the number of votes, just as they now do in only the handful of battleground states.

A nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

* *

By your "logic", with the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), candidates should only campaign in the 11 most populous states, because it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

[DavidDvorkin]

6. Excellent

The EC is an absurdity.

[Chan790]

9. then he just lost any chance of ever having my support.

I will unapologetically oppose any candidate that supports EC reform (edit: or NPV.)

[mvymvy]

16. 67-81% Support for a National Popular Vote in States

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Most voters don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans consider the idea of the candidate with the most popular votes being declared a loser detestable. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia, Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California, Colorado (9), Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (19), New Jersey (14), Maryland (11), California (55), Massachusetts (10), New York (29), Vermont (3), Rhode Island (4), and Washington (13). These 11 jurisdictions have 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

[Chan790]

17. Not relevant. Fallacies do not make good bases for positioning an argument.

Pointing to the broad support of NPV rather than arguing why it's a good idea is to merely commit bandwagon fallacies and appeals to popularity. If it was a good idea, it would be a good idea even if nobody supported it. It would be a terrible idea even with 100% support. Popularity is not a basis of legitimacy or measurement of a quality of an idea.

[fadedrose]

10. I think the popular vote winner

should win. It doesn't discriminate against a smaller state with less electoral votes...

[restorefreedom]

11. he is right

one person, one vote

[gollygee]

18. Here in MI, the GOP is trying to play games with electoral votes

so I'm becoming a bigger fan of getting rid of that system too.

They can't win if everyone votes and every vote counts as one, so they're working very hard to keep people from voting and making some votes count for more than others. Maybe we need to give a good push in the other direction.

[John Poet]

19. Now that Democrats have a distinct advantage

in the electoral college for as far as the eye can see,
I don't think we should be getting rid of it.