[EL] FW: An Electoral College Tie?

[JBoppjr at aol.com]

Yes, I confess it is my goal.  Silly me.  Jim
 
 
In a message dated 12/16/2011 11:46:17 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
tpotter at capdale.com writes:

like  Paul, I was struck by the assertion that the "goal" of our election 
system was  to "elect the best person for the job.".

That may have been the goal of  the drafters who conceived of  the 
electoral college, but post G.  Washington it has never had that function.

I was recently told by a  Chinese Communist Party official that the "goal" 
for their political system  was the selection of the best possible and most 
qualified  persons to  lead their country--and that they did not believe 
that our western   democratic systems had either that goal or those results! 
The official was  quite clear that he thought there was a tension between 
majoritarian voting  systems and the selection of the "best" leaders--and China 
knew which way they  wanted to  resolve that tension....

Trevor Potter

Sent by  Good Messaging (www.good.com)


-----Original Message-----
From:  Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com]
Sent:     Friday, December 16, 2011 11:19 AM Eastern Standard Time
To:     Joe La Rue
Cc:    JBoppjr at aol.com;  law-election at department-lists.uci.edu;  
BSmith at law.capital.edu
Subject:    Re: [EL] FW: An Electoral  College Tie?

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Joe La Rue  
<joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> "[...] I think what  he said was, *the goal* of a national *election* for
> president is *to  elect the best person *for the job. The goal should not
> be [...]"  (emphasis added)
>
>
>  "Elections" do not, in and of  themselves, have "goals" other than the
following: *to objectively measure  the intent of the voters* as expressed
by their ballots, after a process  called campaigning structured such that
voters may become reasonably  informed.

Thus, it is a purpose of campaigns and competing media to  facilitate an
informed electorate, because  no rational person with  the best interests of
the country in mind would want the electorate to be  uninformed when they
are acting in their sovereign capacity to delegate  their power to
representatives, via election.

*Elections, in and of  themselves, do not have a "purpose" or "goal" of
electing the "best" person  for the job.  A free people, in order to be
considered free, must be  able to make a mistake and elect the "worst"
person for the job* -- if that  is their free, considered, choice.   There's
no alternative  consistent with freedom because a populace whose choices are
either  constrained or "managed" in any way for goals or purposes other than
simply  objectively measuring the intent of the voters is a populace whose
freedom  is being constrained.

Consequently, while everyone is free to, for  example, support a given
electoral system on the grounds that it  "encourages a stable, two party
system", it is not the purpose or goal of  elections or of liberty to
encourage a stable, two party system.  The  goal of liberty is liberty.
All considerations named as the "goal" or  "purpose" of elections that are
outside the scope of objectively measuring  voter intent after a process of
reasonably informing voters via campaigning  are collateral or ulterior to
the actual purpose of elections:   Measuring voter intent, and thereby
guaranteeing SELF-government by We the  People.

A freedom-loving person reserves the right to themselves to  make mistakes
(and to take responsibility as appropriate, for those  mistakes), and
respects and tolerates that same right with all others,  including the right
of We the People to elect the "wrong" candidate -  however
*subjectively*one measures that quality.

Some of the  interesting discussion in this thread, on all sides, smuggles
into the  purpose of elections things that in fact constrain the freedom of
We the  People (no matter how good, meritorious and wise those purposes may
seem to  be).  Whoever manages or constrains the sovereign (the voters) is
to  that extent usurping the role of the sovereign and putting a thumb on
the  scales of elections, to some degree or another.

Paul Lehto,  J.D.

-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI   49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)

<- - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
To ensure  compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,
we inform you that, unless  specifically indicated otherwise,
any tax advice contained in this  communication (including any
attachments) was not intended or written to be  used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding  tax-related
penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii)   promoting,
marketing, or recommending to another party any  tax-related
matter addressed herein. 

This message is for the use of  the intended recipient only.  It is
from a law firm and may contain  information that is privileged and
confidential.  If you are not the  intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of  this communication is
prohibited.  If you have received this  communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have  received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and  delete/destroy the  document.
<-->


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111216/ab8e5fec/attachment.html>