[EL] Plurality / majority -- Re: FW: An Electoral College Tie?
Rob Richie
rr at fairvote.org
Sat Dec 17 06:26:14 PST 2011
Jim,
Surely you know that a presidential can -- and often does -- become
president with less than 50% of the popular vote. All that NPV does that's
different is:
* ensure a candidate doesn't become president who doesn't even win the
plurality
* keep the election from being thrown into Congress and instead decide it
by the popular vote
As referenced in my email yesterday, Perot would have won a big majority
in the electoral college if in 1992 he had doubled his popular vote,
drawing equally from Clinton and Bush.
Speaking of winning with less than 50%, the Republican nomination contests
next month are likely to be quite instructive. Some lucky candidate (Ron
Paul?) will get all much media attention for "winning" the Iowa caucuses
with less than 25% of the vote. Iowa and New Hampshire don't have
winner-take-all rules, though, so such low-plurality "wins" are less
important than just getting as many votes as you can. However, South
Carolina and, in an unpunished violation of just-passed RNC rules, Florida
will use winner-take-all, so plurality "wins" there in fact will be quite
impactful, as the candidate.
It's quite possible, for example, that Gingrich could win all of the
delegates from SC and FL with less than 40% of the popular vote, then lose
nearly every other contest between now and April 1st, and still be ahead in
the delegate count at that point.
Rob
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 8:20 AM, <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
> **
> But under the NPV, a majority of the Electoral College votes are cast for
> the winner of the popular vote -- not a candidate that gets a majority of
> the popular vote. So it is a plurality winner system. Jim
>
> In a message dated 12/16/2011 5:25:23 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> dan.johnsonweinberger at gmail.com writes:
>
> 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)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
Rob Richie
Executive Director
FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
www.fairvote.org <http://www.fairvote.org> rr at fairvote.org
(301) 270-4616
Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see
http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider a gift
to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's CFC number is
10132.) Thank you!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111217/c2276eb9/attachment.html>
View list directory