Well...at least unethical, moronic Democrats.
For those who don't know, I'm originally from the state of Maryland. I lived in "inside-the-Beltway" places like Takoma Park, Mount Rainier, and College Park to name a few.
Anyway, in 2002, the state elected a magnificent governor by the name of Robert Ehrlich. Not only was Ehrlich a Republican in a very "blue" state, but he was the first Republican governor since Spiro Agnew in 1967!
He instituted all kinds of initiatives that have made Maryland a better state. He pushed legislation to clean up the Chesapeake Bay, increase funding for public schools like never before in the state's history (most of the funds were diverted to schools in poorer areas, too), created a cabinet post for disabilities (the first of it's kind in America), reinstituted the death penalty, and vetoed a health-care bill that Democrats supported but was ruled illegal anyway by a federal judge. In 2005, Ehrlich fired a staffer for spreading false rumors on the internet about former Baltimore mayor Martin O'Malley (a hardcore Democrat), because he didn't want to play dirty politics.
in 2006, the smug and pompous O'Malley ran for governor against Ehrlich. Ehrlich, at the time, was drawing approval ratings in the high 50's. However, because Martin O'Malley had a big "D" next to his name...he won, 52.7-46.2 over the incumbent Ehrlich.
Since then, Martin O'Malley has done nothing to help the state of Maryland. He promised to stop the rate increases in electricity bills for Maryland citizens...and within 5 months, he attempted (unsuccessfully) to increase the rates 50 percent.
O'Malley also pushed through legislation that guarantee's Maryland's electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote in the presidental elections...even if the popular vote in Maryland goes to a different candidate. He has basically given Maryland residents no reason to vote in presidential elections.
Now, in further proof of O'Malley's lack of ethics, he recently fired a state worker because of that worker's ties to former Gov. Ehrlich...but that firing has since been ruled illegal.
Needless to say, my birth-state really knows how to pick 'em...every 35-40 years or so.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think Phil misunderstands the National Popular Vote legislation recently signed into law in Maryland when he says that it gives "Maryland residents no reason to vote in presidential elections."
Maryland residents currently have no reason to vote in presidential elections because, under the current winner-take-all rule, all of the state’s 10 electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state. When the partisan divide in a particular state is not initially closer than about 46%-54% (as is the case in Maryland), no amount of campaigning during a brief presidential campaign is realistically going to change the winner of the state (that is, the Democrat). Consequently, neither presidential candidate has any reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the concerns of voters of states that they cannot possibly win or lose.
Instead, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of “battleground” states. Over two-thirds of candidate visits and two-thirds of the money go into just six closely divided battleground states.
Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The legislation would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President.
With every vote being equally important, the Republican and Democratic nominees would campaign in Maryland because votes in Maryland would suddenly matter.
I think you misunderstand the current fact that until all 50 states sign pieces of legislation that are the same as the state of Maryland's, they have no reason to vote in presidential elections.
Because if Maryland votes for a Democrat, and the rest of the nation votes for a Republican, Maryland's 10 electoral votes go to the Republican, even though a Democrat carried the state.
Hence, why should they even bother? The state's choice may not even represent
So that makes Maryland less important in the grand scheme of things. Candidates would be better off avoiding Maryland and getting their votes elsewhere, because the popular vote in the other 49 states determines who gets the electoral votes from Maryland.
See, joreko, you're assuming that every other state is going to pass this National Popular Vote bill...but unfortunately, it's not going to happen, thus Maryland is rendered much less significant to the campaign trail than it is.
It's pointless to court voters whose votes won't matter.
The law the Governor just signed has no effect on Maryland unless a number of other states sign identical legislation. It doesn't have to be all 50 states, but states that combined have electoral votes that total at least 270 (i.e. a majority).
As for Maryland's electoral votes going to the Republican candidate even if the state votes for the Democrat, what do I care. I care who wins the White House, not who wins Maryland. I also don't care about the mechanism that puts him or her there. I voted for Kerry in 2004. I would gladly have had our electoral votes go to Bush if it meant Kerry won the White House.
I'll repeat myself. This bill basically eliminates the will of the voters of Maryland.
Unless enough states sign this bill (which will not happen), this bill will simply eliminate the will of the Maryland voters to have their electoral votes to go towards the candidate of their choice...and forces their electoral votes to go towards the candidate that the rest of the nation chooses.
Post a Comment