[EL] ELB News and Commentary 12/15/11

[Richard Winger]

The U.S. Constitutional Convention did not create the electoral college to defend the rights of small states.  The Convention felt that small states would be protected by the US Senate, and that small states didn't need any other defense.

The Convention created the electoral college to defend the rights of slave states, not small states.

The opening line of the U.S. Constitution is "We the People" not "we the states."

Richard Winger

415-922-9779

PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

--- On Thu, 12/15/11, Sean Parnell <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com> wrote:

From: Sean Parnell <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>
Subject: Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 12/15/11
To: "'Dan Johnson'" <dan.johnsonweinberger at gmail.com>, "'Rick Hasen'" <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
Cc: "'law-election at UCI.EDU'" <law-election at UCI.EDU>
Date: Thursday, December 15, 2011, 11:23 AM

Dan: I’m quite happy to mount a defense, robust or otherwise.  The presidency was not intended to represent “the people” in the way advocates of direct election presumably prefer. As part of the federal system that was established under the Constitution, including “non-democratic” features such as the U.S. Senate and, indeed, the Electoral College, it was intended that the states would be the ones who determine who the president is. The electoral college is the mechanism through which the states select the president. If, for some reason, the Electoral College is unable to resolve the issue (for example, because of a tie), then the states resolve it through the U.S. House. Just as in the U.S. Senate, every state is equal in the event of a U.S. House selection of the president.  I’m not sure why, in a representative democracy based on the premise of states being co-equal members of a federal republic, where great concern was voiced at the
 time of the founding over protecting the interests and rights of small states , it’s so astonishing to some that this might be the way a president is selected in the event the primary mechanism is unable to do so.   Sean ParnellPresidentImpact Policy Management, LLC6411 Caleb CourtAlexandria, VA  22315571-289-1374 (c)sean at impactpolicymanagement.com  From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Dan Johnson
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 12:38 PM
To: Rick Hasen
Cc: law-election at UCI.EDU
Subject: Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 12/15/11  I'd love to see opponents of the National Popular Vote mount a robust defense of the House of Representatives in a one-vote-per-state-delegation selecting the President (the result of a not-implausible tie in electoral votes).  Because, after all, that is what they are defending. A tie will eventually occur. Let us hope that the National Popular Vote compact is established and confirmed by the Supreme Court before that mathematical certainty rears its ugly head.  Dan    On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:“An Electoral College Tie?” Posted on December 15, 2011 9:18 am by Rick Hasen National Journal ponders.  -- 
Dan Johnson

PartnerKorey Cotter Heater and Richardson, LLC111 West Washington, Suite 1920
Chicago, Illinois 60602http://www.kchrlaw.com
312.867.5377 (office)
312.933.4890 (mobile)
312.794.7064 (fax)
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111215/3258ab4a/attachment.html>