[EL] FW: An Electoral College Tie?

[Paul Gronke]

Colleagues

I'm enjoying this pre-Christmas pre-Chanukah pre-Holiday debate, but I wonder if we need the political philosophers to help out our lawyers?  

In the past, I've recommended this book by Bernard Manin, "The Principles of Representative Government".  (You may find it listed in French but there is a very good English translation by Manin himself).  A charming gift for the lawyer who has everything.

It really is a marvelous walk though the various and competing principles of democracy and representative government, from Athens through the Venetian Republics (the first to begin to experiment with "election" to office instead of "selection by lot" or "appointment" [the Chinese principle mentioned by Trevor]), of course ending with the "triumph of election" and the American republic.

To cut to the chase, and perhaps be a stereotypical academic: 

	-The "best candidate" can mean many things: most competent, most representative, best leader, best political organizer,

	- Elections have many purposes: selecting a leader, representing the public's voice in government, 
		establishing legitimacy, a mechanism for accountability.

There is no single definition of either of these.  The Chinese vision of leadership and elections is excessively narrow, I'd say, and reflective of a view of political leadership as solely a management task.  Hence their recent efforts to squelch public dissent.  In a democratic system, ideally, such dissent is channeled through the ballot box and other democratic mechanisms of expression.
			
---
Paul Gronke	Ph:   503-517-7393
                        Fax: 503-661-0601

Professor, Reed College
Director, Early Voting Information Center
3203 SE Woodstock Blvd
Portland OR 97202

EVIC: http://earlyvoting.net


On Dec 16, 2011, at 9:47 AM, Paul Lehto wrote:

> 
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:56 AM, <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
> Yes, I confess it is my goal.  Silly me.  Jim
> 
> Jim, it is essentially every voter's personal goal to help elect the "best person" for the job.  The question is whether it is the proper goal or purpose of elections to do that.  And the answer seems to be "no."  Above, you only "confess" that it is : "[your] goal."  
> 
> So Jim, do you concur (at least) with the Chinese Communist Party Officials Trevor Potter refers to below that choosing the "best person" for the job is an overriding consideration and/or a fundamental goal/purpose of elections themselves? 
> 
> Paul Lehto, J.D.
>  
> 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)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election