[EL] Plurality / majority -- Re: FW: An Electoral College Tie?

Fri Dec 16 14:25:22 PST 2011

Jim suggests that the statewide winner-take-all rule generates a
majoritarian dimension to presidential selection as the candidate
needs a majority of the Electoral College to win the presidency (or a
majority of the House). He claims that the NPV rule suffers from the
lack of any majoritarian rule.

He is wrong.

A candidate must earn a majority of the votes of the Electoral College
in order to win the presidency, whether earned through the statewide
winner-take-all rule, the NPV compact or a Nebraska/Maine hybrid.

This majoritarian feature does not change when the National Popular
Vote compact is agreed to by state legislatures that, together, are
vested with a majority of the votes of the Electoral College by the
Constitution. That's the essential constitutional feature that the NPV
compact does not (indeed, can not) alter.

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Joe La Rue <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Only thinking beings can have goals. Systems further goals, but they cannot
> of themselves have them. To formulate a goal, one must be able to think,
> strategize, etc. Systems cannot do that. They can only further the goals of
> the people that create the system. People set goals ("we should educate
> children"; "we should rehabilitate prisoners"; "we should choose our
> leaders"; etc.), then develop a system to further the goal.
>
> Joe
> ___________________
> Joseph E. La Rue, Esq.
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
> for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
> and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any
> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
> are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail
> and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Joe La Rue <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Trevor and Paul,
>>>
>>> First, obviously Paul is right: a system cannot have a goal. Rather,
>>> people have goals, and an implemented system should further goals. I spoke
>>> imprecisely, though I think everyone knew what I meant.
>>
>>
>> But systems DO have goals: the prison system has a goal and purposes, the
>> educational system has goals, etc.
>>
>> The question before us is what are the proper purpose(s) of democratic
>> elections, and do these purposes or goals properly include election of the
>> "best" person, if the fundamental goals of our nation include, as they do,
>> liberty via self-government?  [The answer to that is No]
>>
>>>
>>> Second, I think the goal of the people who vote for president is to elect
>>> the best person for the job. Republicans vote for Republicans because they
>>> believe that a Republican president will be better than the alternative, and
>>> Democrats do the same. As for what the Chinese Communist told you, Trevor,
>>> you can do what you want, but I don't put much stock in a Communist
>>> appraisal of our system.
>>
>>
>> I put a kind of "negative stock" in the Chinese Communist appraisal of our
>> system.  The Chinese Communist's observation that western systems reject
>> "best person" results-oriented philosophy in elections amounts to a
>> revealing self-critique on their part (from our perspective here in the
>> west).  It shows how the decision to privilege the idea of achieving some
>> sort of subjective "best person" result over the fundamental requirement of
>> free elections leads to the damage of liberty, or to the destruction of
>> liberty - as it does in China.   In China, they rationalize the absence of
>> liberty and free elections via the primacy and necessity of selecting the
>> "best person" for the job.
>>
>> Whoever or whatever decides or controls the "best person" for the job IS
>> the sovereign.  Under free elections, the sovereign is all the co-equal
>> voters, because they each decide what's "best".  Under non-free systems of
>> governance, the voters can't be trusted to choose the "best," so to some
>> partial or total degree the choices are managed for them by external
>> standards.  (e.g., the right Communist party hack for the job).
>>
>> How we understand the fundamental purposes and goals of elections is at
>> the heart of Citizens United as well.  In the opinion, the majority
>> distinguishes prior case law on First Amendment restrictions in, for
>> example, prison systems and educational systems, and points out that the
>> limited restrictions on the First Amendment that continue to be upheld are
>> upheld in order to uphold the fundamental PURPOSES of those systems or
>> institutions.
>>
>> Apparently, as Joe LaRue suggests above at the top, supporters of Citizens
>> United implicitly (and now expressly, per Joe's statement) believe that
>> elections, as systems, have no fundamental goal purpose.  (And that
>> therefore, no substantial first amendment restrictions are ultimately
>> tenable in campaign finance pursuant to the general philosophy animating
>> Citizens United)
>>
>> But Joe LaRue, in speaking more precisely, has nevertheless stated that I
>> am "obviously" "right."   What I'm right about is not just that only
>> individual voters have the "purpose" of selecting the "best", but that
>> elections themselves do not have the purpose of selecting the "best person".
>>
>> But elections most certainly DO have other purposes!   One is to measure
>> the intent of voters after a campaign season allowing them the opportunity
>> to become reasonably well-informed decision-makers.
>>
>> People often wrongly assume that what might be called "political
>> philosophy" is academic or a nicety of some kind, but in fact the political
>> "theory" of the purposes of elections is really at the heart of many
>> debates, including differences over Citizens United.
>>
>> Paul Lehto, J.D.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Trevor Potter <tpotter at capdale.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>> <-->
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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

-- 
Dan Johnson

Attorney at Law
111 West Washington, Suite 1920
Chicago, Illinois 60602

312.867.5377 (office)
312.933.4890 (mobile)
312.794.7064 (fax)