[EL] FW: An Electoral College Tie?

[Thomas J. Cares]

Going more back to the original question, is it fathomable that an
independent, with enough votes to deprive Democrats or Republicans an EC
majority (perhaps just 10%) - especially a strong neutral one like
Bloomberg - could manually strong-arm his victory as a back-running
condorcet winner by posing an ultimatum to one of the major parties, to
either direct their electors to vote for him or he'll have his vote for the
opposing party (i.e. Bloomberg demanding Republican electors vote for him,
or he'll have his tip Obama over to victory)?

If it is fathomable, how would anyone defend that hypothetical?


Thomas Cares

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 8:56 AM, <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:

> **
> 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.
> <-->
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20111216/af71eb9a/attachment.html>