Popular Vote

WASHINGTON --Much is being made in the Republican camp of a review by the Miami Herald and the Knight-Ridder chain, which owns the Herald, of 10,644 previously unexamined "undervotes" in the presidential election in Florida's Miami-Dade County. Supporters of Democratic nominee Al Gore claimed after the election that they would have made him the winner. It turns out, though, that Mr. Gore would have picked up a net of only 49 votes had they been hand counted -- far short of the 537-vote Florida margin for George W. Bush in the official certification.

How fitting that after Republicans lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections, plus lost the popular vote for Congress by over a million votes - and only hold on to their majority in the House by vigorous gerrymandering - the Supreme Court is poised to further erode our constitutional right to vote ("High court split clouds Voting Rights Act's fate," Feb.28). When has this activist court ever missed a chance to legislate losing right-wing Republican policies from the bench?

I have a bet with a friend that if President Obama wins re-election in the Electoral College but loses the popular vote, all the raging against the Electoral College in the print and broadcast media will immediately cease. Within three months, you won't hear a peep about the Electoral College system. Wanna bet? Douglas B. Hermann, Parkville

A recent Baltimore Sun article, "Election remake hits hurdles," (Jan. 29) brings to light new thoughts on how to change the rules of the Electoral College. At the present time, all states use the winner-take-all system except two, Maine and Nebraska. These states allow a proportional electoral vote based on their congressional districts. The article relates how, recently, various governors, senators and congressmen have suggested various schemes for revising the rules, most of them based on the award of electoral votes by the popular vote winners in their congressional districts.

It is fitting that Maryland is pioneering the effort to create a multistate compact to ensure that the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote wins the White House. After all, it was Maryland's electoral college system for electing state senators, first established in 1776, that the U.S. Constitution's drafters later used as a model for creating the Electoral College as we know it today. Last year, Sen. Jamie Raskin of Montgomery County spearheaded the successful campaign to get the General Assembly to become the first signatory on what's known as the National Popular Vote plan.

Gov. Martin O'Malley isn't wavering from his support for Sen. Hillary Clinton, but he's not toeing the party line on how superdelegates should vote or on the idea of her fighting all the way to the Democratic National Convention. In an interview yesterday with The Sun's editorial board, O'Malley - one of the first governors to endorse Clinton's bid for president - said he agrees with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that it would be dangerous for superdelegates to overturn the popular vote of Democratic primary voters.

The House of Delegates approved a proposal yesterday that could make Maryland the first state in the nation to award its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote in presidential elections. The bill commits Maryland to a national compact that would go into effect only after states with electoral votes representing a national majority - the 270 required to win the presidency - also sign on. As such, it would likely not affect how the state's votes are counted in the 2008 contest - and could never be implemented if other states fail to approve similar measures.

ISTANBUL, Turkey -- Parliament approved yesterday a constitutional amendment to elect Turkey's president by a popular vote, giving even greater weight to midsummer elections that are shaping up as a divisive referendum on the role of Islam in government. The 376-1 vote by lawmakers opens the door to holding presidential and parliamentary elections simultaneously, on July 22. However, the package of electoral reforms could still be blocked by a veto from the country's resolutely secular president, with whom the ruling party is at odds.

Ohio, Virginia, Florida: If you don't live in one of these or a few other "battleground" states, you may feel disenfranchised in U.S. presidential elections. As a Marylander, no major party candidate competes for your vote - even if the nationwide polls suggest that the election is close. Whether you are part of a voter majority or voter minority, a Democrat, a Republican or something else, as a Maryland resident you simply cannot affect the state outcome under the current "winner-take-all" system.

It said in the papers Sunday that the Electoral College was about to elect "a candidate who did not receive the most votes from the American people for the first time in 112 years." Yesterday, as the electors were gathering in the state capitals to elect George W. Bush, who did not by any count get more popular votes than Al Gore, the papers again reported that 1888 was "the last time it happened." Over the past five weeks, newspapers, magazines, radio and television reported that bit of conventional wisdom at least 100 times.

The passage of Maryland's marriage equality law this year was recognized by many readers as having been the most significant news event of 2012, and they suggested several people who were deserving of recognition as Marylander of the Year for their role in seeing it enacted. To represent them, we chose Del. Maggie McIntosh. Without her effort, marriage equality would not have passed either in the legislature or at the ballot box. She also had a pretty decent year as chairwoman of the House Environmental Matters Committee.

I feel compelled to respond to the Democrats' continual gloating and condescension concerning the 2012 election typified by Raymond Hoff's recent letter to the editor ("Republicans make themselves easy to beat," Nov. 24). Perhaps if would be more useful to focus not on why Republicans lost, but why Democrats won. One illustrative fact is that while President Barack Obama won slightly more than 50 percent of the popular vote, 62 percent of people interviewed in exit polls stated that the country was on the wrong track.

Second terms have rarely been kind to American presidents. Our last two-term leader, George W. Bush, ended his tenure with a financial crash so disastrous that his own party has tried to erase him from memory. Mr. Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, was more successful, but he still spent much of his second term enmeshed in a sex scandal and battling impeachment. Even our greatest modern presidents had rocky second terms: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan are all revered more for what they accomplished in their first four years than for their later acts.

Regardless of Election Day's results, it's time to call the Electoral College what it truly is - immoral. Obtaining equal voting rights has been a struggle in the United States since our inception. We immorally excluded women and entire ethnicities. We now find it palatable to ignore the minority vote in our winner-takes-all system. A vote for Mitt Romney in Maryland was a vote for zero, nothing, zilch. The same can be said about a vote for Barack Obama in Texas. It's time to resurrect the 91st Congress' attempt to abolish this antiquated and immoral system that systematically ignores large portions of the voting populace.

Maryland's vote for same-sex marriage and the Dream Act runs counter to history, political science and human nature — a majority of citizens upholding laws that benefit distinct minorities. I think a little more attention must be paid to this. I find it extraordinary. Put to a popular vote, the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples to marry had been shot down 32 times in states across the nation, proof of the majority's power to limit the rights of a minority group or even oppress it. This has been referred to as the "tyranny of the majority.

I have a bet with a friend that if President Obama wins re-election in the Electoral College but loses the popular vote, all the raging against the Electoral College in the print and broadcast media will immediately cease. Within three months, you won't hear a peep about the Electoral College system. Wanna bet? Douglas B. Hermann, Parkville

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - After thousands of campaign miles logged, myriad stump speeches, town-hall meetings and fund-raisers, Vice President Al Gore spent an excruciatingly long day yesterday cloistered in a hotel suite and pondering an almost unimaginable decision: whether to fight for the presidency he's confident he has won, or forgo a protracted battle and hand the White House to his rival. Last night, it appeared that the battle was on - at least for the moment. Though the vice president's language was couched in stilted solemnity, the message was clear.

WASHINGTON - George W. Bush may not have captured the presidency, but the Republican candidate now holds the high ground from which to wage the political war that lies ahead. He is the one with the bird in hand. The certification of Bush's triumph in Florida may have been viewed by those who have been following the controversy closely as just another pro forma action in a continuing legal drama with several more acts to follow. And it is clearly viewed just that way by Vice President Al Gore and the Democratic Party.

A number of news reports have suggested the possibility of the presidential election ending in a draw - both candidates garnering 269 electors. You need 270 to win. A long shot? Maybe. It happened in 1800, when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr each ended up with the same number of electors, proving that even the Framers weren't immune to the law of unintended consequences. Their solution to such an event produced one of their most formidable compromises: the "contingent" election, where the failure of any candidate to achieve a majority of electors would result in a vote by the House of Representatives, with each state casting one vote.