One of the quieter stories that could have an impact as early as '08 is the new Maryland law regarding the electoral college.

"By terms of the compact, states agree to give all of their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, not the winner in their own state. The compact would only go into effect once it was joined by states representing a controlling majority of the electoral college."

EDIT:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." Article 2 of the Constitution

In fact, we have an alternative method in place RIGHT NOW, as we speak:

"Two states do not elect the Presidential Electors as a single slate. Maine and Nebraska elect two electors by a statewide ballot and choose their remaining Electors by congressional district. The method has been used in Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1991, though neither has split its electoral votes in modern elections."

Jonathan4Dean's diary :: ::

It means that in elections where one candidate carries a plurality of the popular vote, that candidate wins. No ands, ifs, or buts.

Who loses?? The "experts" will lead you to believe the small, rural states lose power. North Dakota's three electoral votes are proportionally far more weighty in terms of actual population (645,000 people) than California's 55 electoral votes (33.9 million people).

While that is factual, overall, the states that lose are the "swing" states---between 6 and 10 states that could go either way. These aren't small states, these are medium-sized states (between 5 and 27 electoral votes). Do you really want the Presidency decided by 6 states? Is that the best way to express the will of the people?

Under the current system, candidates don't care about small states. When was the last time anyone visited Alaska? Or Oklahoma? When was the last time the issues important to small-state, rural voters were heard....when was the last time farm subsidies became a hot potato in a general election?

Opponents complain that the plan favors more liberal politics and Democratic candidates. In 2000, that's true, Gore would have won the election under these proposed new rules. No, I'm sorry, the popular vote winner would have prevailed, despite the electoral wrangling.

Let's consider 2004. Bush beat Kerry by a reasonably large margin---but had Kerry swung a few thousand votes in Ohio, he would have won. The popular vote winner, Bush, a Republican, would have lost.

In fact, by my quick count, Republicans have managed to win the popular vote in 8 of 15 elections after FDR.

By population, what states are the largest? The top 10 are: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, North Carolina, Georgia. That's a pretty diverse list, representing different interests and ideas about governing the country.

Well, some might say, what if there is a demagogue that plays upon the fears of the people? What if that candidate manages to steal or manipulate his/her way into the Presidency?

First of all, that has probably happened before, and will happen again under the current system. Secondly, the Founders created a number of safe-guards to prevent that from happening.

Even with the new system, the electoral college is maintained. If electors are uncomfortable with selecting a candidate, they can defect. If the Congress is uncomfortable with a set of electoral votes, they can challenge the results.

But the best thing about this proposal? It rests upon the current system. If states representing 270 electoral votes participate, and it doesn't work, one of those states can repeal the law and we go right back to square one.

If it works horribly, the small and medium sized states can band together and support an amendment to stop it.

If it works brilliantly, we can alter the Constitution to make it a semi-permanent facet of our democracy.

There really isn't anything to lose here. What do you think?