UPDATEx2: A Little Bit of Math

Okay, since the MD State Board of Elections hasn’t yet come to the final count, I thought I would try a little comparison.

So the figures I am now working with are as of “Last updated: 11/23/2010 8:35:05 PM.”

The only reason I make this comparison is to demonstrate how the percentages may shift. That, and the fact that the line of reasoning for one constitutional question shows the inconsistency when looking at other constitutional questions in recent past (2008). The prime reason for this comparison is that, at least, I can get an approximation of total vote counts (from 2008) to use as if they were 2010 (we will see how close this can be once we get the final numbers for 2010).

All that is being done is comparing the total votes for questions 1, 2 and 3 against total votes cast for each question. Then comparing the total votes “For” against the total votes cast for the winner in the 2010 Governor’s race, the total votes cast for all Gov./Lt. Gov. candidates [ed: updated] and, then, making the comparison of the “For” votes against the two winning questions on the 2008 ballot as well as the Presidential race.

In this way, you will see how the percentages fall when calculated against ever increasing totals.

Notice that, should the 2010 grand total votes cast (statewide) approach that of 2008, the majority votes for 2010 Question 2 falls well below 50%.

So, one question is – at this point, why is Question 2 considered a win when the totals haven’t yet been achieved and posted publicly?

Likewise, applying the “double majority” rule against all three 2010 ballot questions it looks like question 2 should not be declared a winner at all – given the grand totals have yet to be achieved and publicly posted. One last point to make here – the Constitutional Convention question only asks to determine if a convention is wanted. The other two ballot questions are actually determining changes to the Constitution. One question’s sense of majority is different from the other two. Allow me to be even more blunt. Questions 2 and 3 are being accepted by a simple majority, regardless of the overall number of electors. Question 1 is not being accepted by a simple majority.

Is that what you want? Is that acceptable?

Updatedx2: Let’s put another spin on this, shall we? As of the latest posted vote counts 209,418 voters have disenfranchised 897,239 voters that wanted a Constitutional Convention. Those 209,418 failed to mark For/Against for ballot Question Number 1. And this assumes that the grand total of statewide voters actually voted for a candidate in the Governor’s race. Just saying. That could well be true, but I wonder.

Hey, I’m just doing a little math here and posing questions. Anyone have a better answer? Anyone that is, except a member of, or working for, the General Assembly?

Remember now, the section in the Maryland Constitution (Article XIV Sect 2) reads as follows:

It shall be the duty of the General Assembly to provide by Law for taking, at the general election to be held in the year nineteen hundred and seventy, and every twenty years thereafter, the sense of the People in regard to calling a Convention for altering this Constitution; and if a majority of voters at such election or elections shall vote for a Convention, the General Assembly, at its next session, shall provide by Law for the assembling of such convention, and for the election of Delegates thereto. Each County, and Legislative District of the City of Baltimore, shall have in such Convention a number of Delegates equal to its representation in both Houses at the time at which the Convention is called. But any Constitution, or change, or amendment of the existing Constitution, which may be adopted by such Convention, shall be submitted to the voters of this State, and shall have no effect unless the same shall have been adopted by a majority of the voters voting thereon (amended by Chapter 99, Acts of 1956, ratified Nov. 6, 1956).

Here is the screen shot (click on the picture to enlarge):

Vote Tallies

Involving the three Constitutional Amendment Questions so far:

Of those who voted For/Against the MD Constitutional Convention Question

Of those who voted For/Against raising the Trial By Jury Threshold ($10k to $15k)

Of those who voted For/Against the Judge for Baltimore City Orphans Court to be a member in good standing of the Maryland Bar
(Means not only MUST the Judge be a lawyer but also a Member of the Bar)

Point: Out of these three Ballot Questions, the ONLY ONE requiring a double majority for passage is the first one. Why not the other two?? Just asking. I think it is a pertinent question.

Maybe?

Early returns show promise for Constitutional Convention, other MD ballot Questions
Posted: 10:30 PM TUE, November 2, 2010
By Steve Lash
Daily Record Legal Affairs Writer

If early election results hold, Maryland will engage in a full scale review of the state’s constitution for the first time since 1967.

Wow A Supporter

Thank you, Brian. From Red Maryland.

I happen to agree with your assessment. Good job.

We Are One of Four

Monday, October 11, 2010
Four states to weigh calls for constitutional conventions
By Melissa Maynard, Stateline Staff Writer

The measures in Iowa, Maryland, Michigan and Montana would be on the ballot this year with or without the Tea Party movement. Those four states are among the 14 that ask voters at set intervals of between 10 and 20 years.

One common feature is that the delegates of the convention don’t get the last word: Voters must approve the new constitution before it can take effect.

County Exec Says 10 percent Firefighter Cuts

In the Washington Examiner, Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett said Tuesday about one in 10 county firefighters would lose his or her job if voters reject a new ambulance fee as put on the November ballot as a referendum issue. (That referendum to be on the ballot was court ordered, by the way.)

87 of them at risk of losing their jobs since there are 20 vacancies. Ironically, there is an argument that residents may reconsider dialing 911 if they expect to be charged a fee.

Well, I hate to say it, but everyone had better take a look at this. While it didn’t happen here in Maryland, someone had better ask – will it?

At what cost is it to deny such services, let alone play upon people’s fears? And how much of a loss should citizens suffer due to an arbitrary decision?

Particularly in this time-frame of irresponsible overspending and careless governmental budgeting?

NEWS: Arizona Law In Maryland

PRESS RELEASE:
Delegate Pat McDonough will be introducing a Bill in the coming 2011 General Assembly session that will replicate the Arizona immigration law here in Maryland.

It is important to understand that such legislation simply restates a federal law to the state level. This does not change or add different legal requirements that are already enumerated at the federal level. Instead, this Bill will empower enforcement within the state.

As a candidate for the U.S. Senate, I, Daniel McAndrew, applaud and endorse Delegate McDonough’s attempts to properly apply the rule of law within Maryland concerning the issue of illegal immigration, which, in truth, affects our unemployment, state budget deficit and debt.

I challenge Senator Barbara Mikulski to also endorse this Bill, which will aid Maryland in controlling spiraling costs and unemployment of our legal residents. This Bill will go a long way to return fiscal and human responsibility to Maryland.