[EL] FW: An Electoral College Tie?

Fri Dec 16 09:36:53 PST 2011

Well, first it isn't much different than we see in politics all the time. Is it fathomable, for example, that under NPV, "an independent, with enough votes to deprive Democrats or Republicans [of] a ... 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 [supporters] to vote for him or he'll have his vote for the opposing party (i.e. Bloomberg demanding Republican [voters] vote for him, or he'll have his tip Obama over to victory)?

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

Beyond that, no, it's not terribly fathomable. indeed probably less fathomable than the revised version of it I make above. Basically, a third candidate whose vote is widely dispersed (Ross Perot, Bob LaFollette) would likely get few or no EC votes. A candidate whose vote is regional might get EC votes (Strom Thurmond, George Wallace) but those votes would often represent an ideological halfway house that would with relative clarity tip where his voters would be likely to go. Moreover, it is not at all clear that the candidate could control his electors in that way any more than his general voters, once he was bowing out. Electors are chosen for their loyalty, but I don't think history shows that loyalty to extend beyond the candidate himself, and probably his party. It would be much more likely that the candidate would have to join "a corrupt bargain" (as alleged against J. Q. Adams and Clay), but that would have its own problems for both candidates and be no more worrisome, I think, than ordinary jockeying that takes place in proportional representation systems and even in our own.

In other words, this strikes me as the type of big scare that isn't really so scary once you think about it, and that even if possible has its own counterpart scares under NPV.

Bradley A. Smith

Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault

   Professor of Law

Capital University Law School

303 E. Broad St.

Columbus, OH 43215

614.236.6317

http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx

________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Thomas J. Cares [Tom at tomcares.com]
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 12:00 PM
To: Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] FW: An Electoral College Tie?

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://www.good.com>)

-----Original Message-----
From:     Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com<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<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>; BSmith at law.capital.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com>
906-204-4026<tel: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<mailto: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/ac26551f/attachment.html>