The Capital's Common Sense

The Capital editorial today echoed something I have been saying for a while:

The state Senate and the House have passed a measure that - if it had been in effect in 2004 - would have cast all 10 of Maryland's electoral votes for George W. Bush, even though this state's voters picked John Kerry.

And this would be done in the name of democratic principles. Go figure.

The same measure also blows a juicy raspberry at the Constitution's built-in system for amendments.....

...Our hope is that, if worst came to worst, the courts would throw out these extra-legal pledges and remind apparently clueless state legislators of how one amends the Constitution: Either a national convention must be called at the request of two-thirds of the states, or an amendment must pass the House and the Senate by two-thirds majorities and then be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

It's not a simple process. It wasn't meant to be. But it has been done 27 times, and sometimes for awful ideas like Prohibition (the 18th Amendment). If there's overwhelming national support of direct popular election of presidents, an amendment can be ratified. And if there isn't such overwhelming support, the Constitution shouldn't be touched.

In nations that elect by popular vote, candidates lose interest in regional issues and concentrate on the most populous areas - which for America would be states like California, Texas, New York and Florida. We can't see how such a system would benefit Maryland, which is now slighted not because of its size, but because its presidential vote can be taken for granted by one party.

In any case, this bill is an example of how not to change the Constitution. It should be vetoed by the governor.

A pretty succinct interpretation of this mind-numbingly bad idea. I just wish that the Capital were so pro-voter when it came to the school board bill...