[EL] FW: An Electoral College Tie?

[Paul Lehto]

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 3:48 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.
>
>
According to dictionary.com, synonyms for the word "goal" include target, *
purpose*, *objective*, intent and intention.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goal  In these exchanges, I've used
purpose and goal interchangeably, sometimes in the form of "goal/purpose."

If it is true,as you say, that "Systems further goals, but they cannot of
themselves have them," and that "only thinking human beings can have goals
[purposes, objectives, intents, etc.]," then why do *corporate* systems
have the objective, intent, purpose and *goal* of intervening in American
elections so as to affect the results of elections via political ads?
Aren't corporate systems, as non-thinking entities, in and of themselves
without goals/purposes? According to your position, this appears undeniably
true.

Your position is at least consistent with some black letter law, like
corporations are incapable of emotions, and therefore can't sue for
intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Corporations also have no
loyalty to the USA per se, given that they will outsource jobs at the
expense of Americans without substantial regard to national loyalty.

It follows, then, that corporations are without emotions, have no national
loyalty to speak of, and are incapable of even forming a goal or purpose
because they are also not "thinking beings."   Why, then, would Citizens
United refer to corporations as "a class of *speakers*" when corporations
can't think, have no emotions or loyalty and are incapable of even having a
goal or purpose?    Why would any *rational *voter wish to get "political
information" from corporate systems that at best appear to be profoundly
mentally retarded?

In other words, what is the point, what is the goal or purpose, of
corporate "speech"?  Such speech is pointless, because corporations are
goal-less and purpose-less, by the logic you have now more carefully
articulated above.

Paul Lehto, J.D.


>
> 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)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111217/f37353d1/attachment.html>