Around the Horn Friday
This will be the first time, and perhaps last time, that I link to the Delaware Grapevine in this thread. But Celia does have a nice write up about the 6th Annual Summer Bash.
[T]he Sixth Annual Summer Bash last Saturday in Milton was turned into a charity event for the Food Bank of Delaware. “This is a bank that deserves to be bailed out,” cracked Corey Marshall-Steele, the host who is an aide to Markell.
…
The bash is always a chance for Markell to show he is that rare politician who likes a little silliness in life. It came this time as Pam Tillis made her entrance. As Tillis sang “Cleopatra, Queen of the Nile,” she was carried on a litter by two men costumed as ancient Egyptians. After she arrived on the makeshift stage, she was fanned by fronds, one of them waved by Markell. His fellow frond-fanners were Lt. Gov. Matt Denn, Auditor Tom Wagner and New Castle County Executive Chris Coons. Wagner is a Republican, but the way the state is trending, he has no shot unless he woos Democrats, too, and he is up for re-election next year.
…
Marshall-Steele again showed himself a maestro when it comes to organization and fine food, a critical trait in his latest assignment for Markell as the administrator for Woodburn, the governor’s house in Dover. The two met while Marshall-Steele was volunteering on local legislative races, leading Markell to hire him originally as the executive assistant to the treasurer.
Cheers to Corey! It was a great event, even if I could only stay for an hour. The Mississippi Caviar was great. And now, on to the countdown:
THE JFC MEETS ON THE DOWN LOW
As the JFC meets, Kavips has thoughts on shared sacrifice for all versus total sacrifice for a few. Matthews opposes shared sacrifice simply because he tires of the term. Burris has no confidence in the JFC due to its composition. After listening to the debates, Brian Shields is sad. No, not a sad sad, but an angry sad. Burris thinks cutting jobs in the Department of Education is the answer.
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Matthews says that it is absolutely critical for HB1 to be signed immediately, mostly to ensure open JFC meetings. Of course, by now we know that Markell waited to sign it until today. He also follows the floor debate on HB117, which he opposes. And when it passes, Matthews lambasts both Rep. Bryon Short and Elaine Manlove. Kilroy looks at an amendment slipped in at the last moment and wonders. Joanne Christian and RSmitty react to the “shockingly and seemingly ignorant” passage of HB 117 on Delaware Politics.
Now, what would be shocking and ignorant is if SB 198 gets any votes whatsoever. This bill is so insipid that it forces me, Delaware Dem, to agree with David Anderson, who is exactly the opposite of everything I am and stand for.
On June 30th, time will stand still, if only in Dover. And HB5 is now SB121, and under that title, it may have an easier time getting passed. What, does Uncle Thurm not see ones and twos now?
Kilroy notices that one legislator voted against HB76, which would require school board members swear an oath upon taking office to uphold the laws of the State of Delaware.
WALGREENS v. THE STATE OF DELAWARE, or is it THE STATE OF DELAWARE v. WALGREENS
Matthews is confused as to why Walgreens has filed a lawsuit. Kavips explains why libertarians love Walgreens, and why Walgreens cancelled their meeting with the state and their press conference. Steve Newton, Delaware’s official Libertarian, responds. (no offense Brian Shields).
OTHER QUICK HITS
Matthews has questions regarding Teach for America. Tommywonk asks if Delaware is losing Green Jobs. Burris shills for the new NCCo GOP Chairman Michael Fleming’s appearance on Friday Forum on WHYY to discuss if the GOP is dead in Delaware (it is), and says it will be the most scintillating 12 minutes of your Friday. I dare say if it is the most scintillating 12 minutes of your Friday, then please check to see if you have a pulse. MJ wins a debate with Wrong Wong, the best Debater on WGMD. Brian Shields reveals that Sussex Councilman Sam Wilson opposes green energy because he doesn’t understand it.
Tags: Delaware
I know you have a lot to go through to get this up, but my rare second post in a week is worth a read. It is about the lack of morality of a litigation specialist and gives an example of why tort law is on incredibly unequal footing.
Seriously, when you read the linked story by Rick Reilly, you very well may want to have a puke-bucket on stand by.
Note that Kilroy flipped his party affiliation back to repub.
It’s HB198 and not SB198. I haven’t yet seen a compelling reason to oppose it. Currently, the crazy Electoral College math means that the candidates focus on about 8 swing states. No need to worry about California or Texas, or Alabama, or Delaware. They are all obvious. Focus instead on Colorado, Florida, Ohio, PA.
HB198 would make every vote count, even from red states and even from blue states. It will matter whether a candidate gets 52% versus 62% of California’s vote. The Electoral College is an anachronism. HB198 would replace that by a system designed to give us as president the candidate with the most votes. How revolutionary!
More information is at http://www.nationalpopularvote.com
I hear that Don Geronimo is joing the WGMD staff……who’s next, The Greaseman?
How about the fact that it will enshrine minority rule. I would rather have proportional votes in the electoral college than a system which says all of the votes would go to a candidate that your state opposed even if that person gets only 25% of the vote nationwide.
You can’t have this in a winner take all system with no run offs. Imagine a world in which Pat Robertson and Jesse Jackson become the front runners by default because they can keep 25% together. Then imagine having to have your vote cast for the winner of the two even though neither won in your state.
Thanks for ATH. I have been waiting all morning for it. Now my day is complete. Except for work.
Re: Walgreens lawsuit
Years ago when I was young and green I worked for a small business that was being sued by a customer over something trivial. One day that customer called and tried to place an order. I wasn’t sure what their status was, so I called my boss. He had a very clear answer that I never forgot:
“I don’t do business with people who sue me.”
You the taxpayer are now being sued by Walgreens. Don’t do business with people who sue you.
Caller Rick – I thought I heard the same thing. And Jared Morris is moving to a 7 PM – 10 PM slot (which is now occupied by Michael Savage).
I also heard that Moe, Larry & Curly took issue with my blog post from yesterday. Now that Geronimo is joining the cast, we might have found our Shemp.
Paul…. the electoral college has a purpose. It is to ensure that the national election is fought in as many states as possible. If we switch to the popular vote, I can guarantee you that the Democrats will spend all of their time in the cities and the Republicans will spend all of their time in the country, and never the two shall meet.
The electoral college was originally installed as a “safeguard” to prevent the voters electing by a popular vote some one who the “electors” felt was unsuitable for the office.
The individual state governments can assign their electoral votes any way they want.
It was never to “ensure that the national election was fought in as many states as possible.” It doesn’t even do that today.
Tell me, A1, will Delaware ever see a presidential candidate campaign here if 198 is passed?
The answer is no.
DD — You have given me far too much credit for my humility. I was promoting my friend Michael Fleming’s appearance on WHYY tonight. However, you missed that he will be joined by……well……ME.
It was pure ego, my friend. And when you get the chance to see the Round Mound of the Profound on the tellie, scintillating is just the beginning.
Hey, I don’t support 198. I support abolishing the electoral college and going to a national popular vote.
The Round Mound of the Profound? You need to change your initials to RMP.
No offense taken. Steve can have the title, I look up to him like a mentor, as he has been involved and knows a heck of alot more than I do.
A1 … 198 and abolishing the electoral college are essentially the same thing.
“The Round Mound of the Profound? You need to change your initials to RMP.”
I guess I’d have some competition for that title, huh?
“I also heard that Moe, Larry & Curly took issue….”…..MJ
Yeah, ‘Moe’ mentioned it this morning.
DD,
In your opinion, 198 and abolishing the electoral college are essentially the same thing, but not in mine.
Anyway, neither of us support it.
If we switch to the popular vote, I can guarantee you that the Democrats will spend all of their time in the cities and the Republicans will spend all of their time in the country, and never the two shall meet.
And Democrats will mostly win — since places with high numbers of votes tend to be blue. Meaning that GOPers can no longer rely on the usual tropes to get into office — they’d have to be able to compete in high vote urban areas.
Not really, at least abolishing it would be legitimate and we would be forced to consider what is an acceptable plurality without a runoff. It is doing an end run around the constitution without thinking through the consequences.
There is some constitutional right that electors have to vote. You can’t punish them for voting differently. Ray v. Blair says that you can choose to certify only people who pledge to vote a certain way, but the enforcement has been ideological and partisan loyalty and the fact that they have to live in there state which just cast a majority for whomever. I wonder if HB 198 type laws would actually work as intended, if people are claiming that Acorn stole an election were the victor is winning 25.1% to 25% and the electors are people representing a state like Arkansas. There would be no downside to voting with the state in spite of the law. We could not be assured of it working.
Well, that is an aspect of abolishing the Electoral College that is very appealing, Cassandra. But if we are going to abolish it, let’s abolish it by Constitutional Amendment and not this convoluted HB198.
acceptable plurality
An acceptable plurality is 50+1 right now. The rest is alot of gibberish designed to make it look like you know something about this.
A national popular vote gives the office to the person who earned the most votes.
I looked at the site PBaumbach listed and they claim to have done a poll in DE that gives 75% approval for a majority vote scheme.
The people of the State of Delaware vote for X, but the ‘compact states’ vote for Y, so Delaware’s electors vote for Y? No way such an abomination would pass judicial muster.
Attempts to misrepresent HB 198 ignore what the bill would do. The compact would ensure that the candidate for President who gets the most votes for President would be elected President.
Quel Horreur!!
CR @ 18 – now how did you know that Gaffney was Moe? No sense of humor.
No Cassandra, It is not 50% plus one. That is contrary to the pact. You always have more than two people running and often the race is settled by less than 50% but not much less because of our system. I believe the lowest vote percentage after 1830 was Lincoln with 40% in a 4 way race. If you eliminate the electoral college, you will get a lot more people in the race and splinter parties. That is okay, but you had better have a plan. There would have to be some sort of run off trigger otherwise you could get a 25% minority President but a Congress still elected on a district basis with a majority party controlling it. What legitimacy do you think they would give that President?
E. S., I do not think it is reasonable to make people who vote one way cast their votes for someone else. It is just crazy when it does not even require a majority vote to trigger it.
The Round Mound of the Profound? You need to change your initials to RMP
Can we borrow the lowercase ‘u’ from Round and instead make his initials RuMP?
I like the system used in Australia which has preferential (or instant run-off) voting. You get a ballot and rank your candidates. If no candidate has a majority after the first preferences are counted, they proceed to the second preferences, etc., until one person has a majority of the votes. I witnessed this in action in 2005 during the Victoria State elections – 87% turnout (voting is mandatory and you can be fined for not voting) and everyone I spoke to believed it to be quite fair.
As an aside, the major networks actually had people coming to the station to witness the vote count (stadium seating, etc.). Quite civilized.
A national popular vote gives the office to the person who earned the most votes.
Which concept, intriguingly enough, would have elected Stephen Douglass, the last place finisher in the Electoral College, as President of the United States in 1860 instead of Abraham Lincoln.
Oops. Take that last one back; misread the columns; but it would have elected Lincoln with less than 40% of the vote.
I was about to say, Steve, the only popular vote winners / EC losers are Andrew Jackson (1824) Samuel Tilden, Grover Cleveland (1888), and Al Gore.
Attempts to misrepresent HB 198 ignore what the bill would do.
It’s obvious what it will do. If Delaware votes for X, and the ‘compact states’ vote for Y, Delaware’s majority vote will be, essentially, suppressed….which is why I don’t think it will ever pass judicial scrutiny. We don’t have ‘national’ elections; we have state-by-state elections.
callerRick wrote:
I don’t think it will ever pass judicial scrutiny.
Under the Constitution, the states can legally appoint their electoral votes any way they want, even if it goes against the majority of the state’s voters.
Meanwhile, plurarity winners are more common than you think. Clinton won with plurarities both times, Wilson did it in 1912 and 1916, Nixon in 1968, Truman in 1948, Lincoln in 1860, Garfield in 1880, Cleveland in 1884, Harrison in 1888, Cleveland in 1892.
“Under the Constitution, the states can legally appoint their electoral votes any way they want, even if it goes against the majority of the state’s voters.”…..anonone
This is true (Article II, Sec. 1.). But, subjugating the majority will of the voters of one sovereign state to the will of the voters of a collection of other states may not be.
‘Bulo believes in the person who gets the most votes being elected President. HB 198, if passed in a sufficiently populous number of states, guarantees that.
Rose Mary Woods contortions to the contrary, that’s what the bill does.
‘Bulo thinks that’s good. And ‘bulo simply doesn’t know how to communicate with those who would argue that that simple concept is bad.
‘nonone is down with the popular vote winner getting the big job.
‘nonone ain’t down with HB 198 ’cause until the electoral college is changed by constitutional Amendment I like my vote to be counted the way I cast it.
‘nonone is one of those, waddayacallit, strict constructionists around this.