[EL] FW: An Electoral College Tie?
Douglas Carver
dhmcarver at gmail.com
Sun Dec 18 15:15:54 PST 2011
I do not believe it is the Electoral College system that entrenches
our two-party system -- we seem to be forgetting that before the
modern era, parties rose and died in our system. The Republican Party
- Democratic Party divide of our day in entrenched because the system
is rigged by both parties to squelch the growth of serious alternative
parties.
And comparisons to Europe are misleading -- most parliamentary
democracies coalesce around two major parties. That is the norm. But
in Europe there is room for legitimate alternatives, and at times the
necessity for coalitions of rightist parties, leftist parties, or
"grand coalitions" of the center right and center left. I am all for
abolishing the Electoral College as a remnant of the time when our
nation wished the franchise to be restricted and controlled, but I
think that is a separate issue from the two-party issue. And I agree
NPV is not the best solution, but at least it would approximate a true
popular vote, and it is probably the best we could hope for at the
present.
I would love to see direct popular vote for president, with a runoff
of the top two candidates if no candidate gains over 50%. Many
democracies select their leader in such a fashion. We should do so
here.
Douglas Carver
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:
> Not at all, Rob. For example, a bunch of Massachusetts Democratic state
> legislators might be sitting about thinking - quite plausibly - that Obama
> will lose the popular vote in 2012, but may be able to win the Electoral
> College. If he wins the popular vote, he'll probably win the EC anyway. Time
> to opt out. How great a prediction is that? You hardly need to be
> Nostradamus to see opting out as a win-win for Mass Democrats.
> No special session of the legislature is necessary - they can do it in
> regular session. They know their decision will be popular in their state,
> which definitely wants its votes to go for Obama, so that's not an issue.
> And so they get what they want. It's as plausible as your scenario. It's
> just not happening __ right now __ in Massachusetts or anywhere else because
> we don't have NPV. In other words, you're the one giving us the "Big BOO"
> scenario, not realizing that once you have NPV, it has all its corresponding
> "Big Boos."
> Your "boo" description is exactly one of my problems with the NPV and other
> anti-electoral college fans. They''re constantly conjuring up scenarios that
> if only X, Y, and Z had happened - why, a change of just 4101 votes in
> Aruba, 26,384 votes in Baluchistan, and 16,372 votes in Hawaii, and holy
> moly!, we'd have a president win without winning the popular vote, just like
> in 1876 and 1888 and 2000, only this time, the people wouldn't stand for it
> and we'd have riots in the streets and on and on. And the election of
> Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 led to the withdraw of Union forces from the
> south and the advent of Jim Crow, whereas if Tilden the Democrat had won,
> well, that would only have led to the withdrarw of Union forces from the
> south and the advent of Jim... well - you get the picture - it's a disaster
> just waiting to happen!
>
>
>
> 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 Rob Richie
> [rr at fairvote.org]
> Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 10:31 AM
> To: JBoppjr at aol.com
> Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>
> Subject: Re: [EL] FW: An Electoral College Tie?
>
> Jim,
>
> Political scientists will tell you that winner-take-all election rules are
> what drives parties and candidates assemble electoral majorities, not
> blocking a national popular vote for president. That's why our states don't
> have multi-partism despite not having Electoral College-type rules for
> governor and US Senators (although I'd enjoy observing how successful you
> would be in trying to put such rules in place in states to replace popular
> vote elections).
>
> As an aside, the founders said nothing about wanting to create a two-party
> system. It wasn't even a remote rationale for setting up the Electoral
> College. By apparently wanting to gerrymander rules to sustain a two-party
> system, you're paying respect to early partisans like Martin Van Buren, not
> our founders -- indeed, it was the likes of Van Buren who pushed hard for
> statewide winner-take-all rules to maximize advantage for their party, not
> for any noble reasons involving the strength of our republic.
>
> Rob
>
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 9:41 AM, <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Ensure" no but the way it works -- the need to ultimately get a majority
>> of the Electoral College or the House -- drives the behavior of candidates
>> and political parties toward assembling a governing majority at the time of
>> the election. The NPV, just like the parliamentary system, doesn't do that
>> nearly as well. That is a big reason why serious third parties have not
>> thrived in the US but have in Europe. Jim Bopp
>>
>> In a message dated 12/18/2011 6:18:17 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> Tom at TomCares.com writes:
>>
>> To quickly respond to Jim: What kind of fictitious majority does the
>> Electoral College ensure?
>>
>> In 1992, 49 states had no majority winner. In 2000, the EC produced a
>> national plurality loser (let alone a majority winner).
>>
>> You could just as meaningfully guarantee a majority winner by dividing
>> a basin in half for the top two candidates, and dropping an odd number
>> of jelly beans over it.
>>
>> Thomas Cares
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On 12/16/11, JBoppjr at aol.com <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
>> > Re Rob's comment about my post, every Presidential candidate for all
>> > time
>> > has and will have limited resources so they will decide to go some
>> > places,
>> > but not others. That does not make the "other" places irrelevant --
>> > their
>> > votes still matter and count. So this "problem" is not fixed by the NPV,
>> > it
>> > just changes where candidates might go. It seems obvious to me that
>> > they
>> > will go to the major population centers under NPV, not small states. I
>> > acknowledge that liberals are likely to see this as an improvement --
>> > greater
>> > influence of large liberal population centers -- but I don't.
>> >
>> > But the biggest (nonpartisan) problem with NPV is that it allows the
>> > election to be decided by a plurality, not a majority. The Constitution
>> > requires a majority -- either of the Electoral College or the House --
>> > while
>> > the
>> > barest plurality is enough under NPV. This has, in my view, profound
>> > destablizing effects and would ultimately undermine the legitimacy of
>> > our
>> > federal
>> > government. Jim Bopp
>> >
>> >
>> > In a message dated 12/16/2011 12:06:23 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>>
>> > rr at fairvote.org writes:
>> >
>> > So, just so I have this straight:
>> >
>> >
>> > * Jim Bopp thinks that having more voters matter only is of interest to
>> > self-interested consultants. To him it's irrelevant that Barack Obama
>> > can
>> > run
>> > for re-election without his campaign having to worry for a second about
>> > the
>> > views of voters in the ten smallest states (e.g, he has no primary
>> > challenge, and none of the ten smallest states is on anyone's 2012
>> > battleground
>> > list - they won't matter to the Republican nominee come this fall
>> > either).
>> > Apparently the power to hold one's elected representatives accountable
>> > is a
>> > kind of distraction from the main purpose, which is the magic of swing
>> > states being able to elect better presidents than the nation could as a
>> > whole.
>> >
>> >
>> > * Tara Ross believes that the Electoral College caused the differences
>> > between the North and South to "melt away." Never mind that, due to
>> > deals
>> > over
>> > electors, Rutherford Hayes in 1877 cravenly entered a corrupt deal that
>> > effectively ended Reconstruction, leading to Jim Crow laws and
>> > Democratic
>> > one-party dominance of the South for nearly a century. Never mind that
>> > with
>> > the winner-take-all rule, there is absolutely no incentive to compete in
>> > states you can't win, as opposed to a national popular vote where
>> > there's an
>> >
>> > incentive to compete everywhere you can win votes.
>> >
>> >
>> > * Tara thinks that the Electoral College is key to maintaining the
>> > two;party system, perhaps having missed the significance of Duverger's
>> > Law
>> > and the
>> > lack of rampant multi-partism in all the states that hold their
>> > elections
>> > without an Electoral College system.
>> >
>> >
>> > Sorry if a bit snippy - I'll ascribe it to watching two hours of the
>> > presidential debate tonight.
>> > Rob
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Tara Ross <_tara at taraross.com_
>> > (mailto:tara at taraross.com) > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > But a Democrat in the late 1800s has a significantly harder time
>> > getting
>> > the vote of a northerner v. a southerner. That Democrat is much more
>> > productive and efficient if he simply seeks to drive up voter turnout in
>> > the
>> >
>> > South. Why bend over backwards to get the vote of someone outside your
>> > base
>> > when you can simply promise more to voters who are naturally inclined to
>> > like
>> > you? It is much easier to promise anything and everything to your
>> > natural
>> > base so they will come out in droves on election day. High voter
>> > turnout
>> > among your base, not coalition-building, wins this type of election.
>> > I should also note, by way of background, that I never assume that the
>> > two-party system will remain stable without the Electoral College. A
>> > multi-party system is less conducive to coalition-building as a general
>> > matter; it
>> > instead tends to fracture voters across parties.
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Samuel Bagenstos [mailto:_sbagen at gmail.com_
>> > (mailto:sbagen at gmail.com) ]
>> > Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 9:41 PM
>> > To: Tara Ross
>> > Cc: _rr at fairvote.org_ (mailto:rr at fairvote.org) ;
>> > _BSmith at law.capital.edu_
>> > (mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu) ; _JBoppjr at aol.com_
>> > (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com)
>> > ; _law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
>> > (mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
>> >
>> > Subject: Re: [EL] FW: An Electoral College Tie?
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > This is not my issue, but I don't see how you can credit the Electoral
>> > College, as opposed to a popular-vote alternative, for encouraging the
>> > post-Civil-War division between North and South to melt away. Sure,
>> > Democrats had
>> > to reach out to northerners, but they would have needed to do so under
>> > a
>> > popular-vote plan, too. Indeed, one might argue that they would have
>> > had
>> > to do so sooner, because each person's vote in the cities of the North
>> > would
>> > have counted as much as each person's vote in the rural South, but this
>> > isn't my area. Whatever the electoral system, if a party finds itself
>> > persistently losing elections, it will eventually decide it has to
>> > reach
>> > beyond
>> > its then-current base. I don't see how this is a unique feature of the
>> > Electoral College.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Samuel R. Bagenstos
>> >
>> > Professor of Law
>> >
>> > University of Michigan Law School
>> >
>> > 625 S. State St.
>> >
>> > Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>> >
>> > _sambagen at umich.edu_ (mailto:sambagen at umich.edu)
>> >
>> > _http://web.law.umich.edu/_FacultyBioPage/facultybiopagenew.asp?ID=411_
>> > (http://web.law.umich.edu/_FacultyBioPage/facultybiopagenew.asp?ID=411)
>> >
>> > _http://disabilitylaw.blogspot.com/_
>> > (http://disabilitylaw.blogspot.com/)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Dec 15, 2011, at 10:21 PM, Tara Ross wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes, elections are about selecting the best President, not about making
>> > sure every citizen sees every presidential candidate exactly the same
>> > number
>> > of times as his fellow citizens. But assuming, arguendo, that such
>> > stats
>> > do matter, the “swing state” situation is not nearly as dire as Rob
>> > suggests. We are in a moment in time when this particular division
>> > between
>> > red
>> > and blue states—blue coasts/red flyover states—seems impossible to
>> > change.
>> > But I would suggest that the north/south division between red and blue
>> > states must have seemed similarly unalterable in the late 1800s. In the
>> > end, of
>> > course, it did change. And I would argue that the Electoral College
>> > actually encouraged this division between north and south to melt away.
>> > Democrats couldn’t win without reaching out to northerners; Republicans
>> > were
>> > cutting it close if they relied only on safe states; thus, they reached
>> > out
>> > to
>> > southerners. Eventually, the same dynamics should work to erase the
>> > seemingly stubborn division between red and blue today.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: _law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_
>> > (mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu)
>> > _[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu]_
>> > (mailto:[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu]) On
>> > Behalf
>> > Of_JBoppjr at aol.com_ (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com)
>> > Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 6:59 PM
>> > To: _rr at fairvote.org_ (mailto:rr at fairvote.org) ;
>> > _BSmith at law.capital.edu_
>> > (mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu)
>> > Cc: _law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
>> > (mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
>> > Subject: Re: [EL] An Electoral College Tie?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Unless you are a political consultant looking for work in a particular
>> > state, why would you care that "Those small states collectively
>> > received a
>> > grand total of one campaign visit from a major party candidate for
>> > president
>> > and vice-president in the final two months of the 2008 campaign."
>> > Presidential elections are not about where candidates campaign but
>> > about
>> > electing
>> > the best President. But since many of the supporters of NPV, especially
>> > on
>> > the Republican side, are political consultants paid by NPV, they find
>> > this
>> > argument persuasive. I find it irrelevant. Jim Bopp
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > In a message dated 12/15/2011 5:49:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> > _rr at fairvote.org_ (mailto:rr at fairvote.org) writes:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Brad,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > A lot of NPV advocates believe the candidate with fewer votes shouldn't
>> > beat someone with more votes, but see the more pressing problem to be
>> > the
>> > grotesque distortion of candidate behavior and White House policy focus
>> > that
>> > is created by the current Electoral College rules.
>> >
>> > There's compelling evidence of a deadly combination: a shrinking of the
>> > number of swing states and the hardening of the definition of what is a
>> > swing
>> > state. Some folks questioned FairVote's 2008 analysis concluding that
>> > the
>> > number of swing states going into 2012 was going to be smaller than
>> > ever,
>> > but I trust no one is questioning it now. We were right -- analysts
>> > like
>> > Larry Sabato now talk about fewer than 10 swing states likely to
>> > determine
>> > the
>> > 2012 election, just as we explained after the 2008 results came in.
>> >
>> > You can take it to the bank right now that this will have an impact on
>> > turnout in swing states versus others Furthermore, if the Obama
>> > campaign
>> > acts
>> > like the Bush re-election campaign in 2004 - and all indications are
>> > that
>> > they will -- then they won't waste a dime on polling a single person
>> > living
>> > outside of the swing states. Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd said
>> > the
>> > campaign didn't poll anyone outside a potential battleground for the
>> > final
>> > 30 months of the 2004 campaign, which of course influenced a lot of
>> > what
>> > the campaign did in policy proposals at the same time the president was
>> > tasked with governing the nation as a whole.
>> >
>> >
>> > This dynamic unavoidably has a policy impact. Perhaps the most
>> > revealing
>> > insight into distortions created by the current rules came from candid
>> > remarks from former U.S. Senator Arlen Specter this fall. Specter
>> > represented
>> > Pennsylvania in the U.S. Senate for three decades, and he saw a lot of
>> > presidents come and go - -and come and go .....and come and go.... as
>> > he
>> > represented a big swing state. Check out this blogpost by my colleague
>> > Katie Kelly
>> > reporting on what Specter said, with some sample quotes from Specter:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _http://www.fairvote.org/arlen-specter-extra-money-for-swing-state-status_
>> >
>> > (http://www.fairvote.org/arlen-specter-extra-money-for-swing-state-status#.Tu
>> > p3UTVAaRg)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > “I think it’d be very bad for Pennsylvania because we wouldn’t attract
>> > attention from Washington on important funding projects for the state.
>> > We
>> > are trying to get more funding now for the deepening of the port [of
>> > Philadelphia]. When I was on the Appropriations Committee, we got $77
>> > million over
>> > the years …We are trying to get the president to do more."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > “Under the current electoral system, [President] Obama has good reason
>> > to
>> > give us the money to carry Pennsylvania. Because presidents think that
>> > way,
>> > it affects their decisions. … In 2004, when I ran with [President
>> > George
>> > W.] Bush, he … came to Pennsylvania 44 times, and he was looking for
>> > items
>> > the state needed to help him win the state. … It’s undesirable to
>> > change
>> > the system so presidents won’t be asking us always for what we need,
>> > what
>> > they can do for us.”
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I find it hard to believe the founding fathers, if suddenly in our
>> > midst,
>> > would accept keeping rules that make a Pennsylvania citizen so much more
>> > important than a citizen in our ten smallest states. Those small states
>> > collectively received a grand total of one campaign visit from a major
>> > party
>> > candidate for president and vice-president in the final two months of
>> > the
>> > 2008 campaign. Just as striking, the single swing state of Ohio had far
>> > more
>> > campaign events in the final two months of the campaign then
>> > _combined__
>> > number of events in the smallest 25 states.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Unlike many folks today, the founders were not afraid of change. They
>> > weren't afraid of fixing things that didn't work. They certainly
>> > weren't
>> > afraid
>> > of fixing the first version of the Electoral College, with the failures
>> > of
>> > 1796 and 1800 leading to the 12th amendment. Rather than accept the
>> > consequences of the winner-take-all rule, I'm sure they would want to do
>> > something about it. Based on what James Madison thought about
>> > presidential
>> > elections, I believe they'd back a national popular vote.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Of course they're not around, so it's up to us. But certainly a lot of
>> > us
>> > think there's a very strong case to be made against the status quo --
>> > certainly one that we can base in facts, while I see nearly all
>> > opposition
>> > arguments being grounded in sentiment and fear.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Rob
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Smith, Brad <_BSmith at law.capital.edu_
>>
>> > (mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu) > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I think that Richard’s comment actually gets at a key point that
>> > undermines much of the case for NPV. There are many arguments for NPV,
>> > but
>> > the key
>> > one is that direct popular vote is either the only or at least the most
>> > legitimate way to select the president. Every poll shows that
>> > substantial
>> > majorities agree.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Yet oddly enough, nobody really much cares that we routinely elect
>> > executives without popular majorities. And despite the fact that many
>> > leading
>> > proponents of NPV say we should use popular vote because “the president
>> > should
>> > be chosen by a majority of our citizens” (Birch Bayh, in Kaza et al.
>> > Every
>> > Vote Equal, at xxii), or because “majority rule [is] a fundamental
>> > tenant
>> > of our democracy (John Anderson, Kaza et al at xviii) in fact, as
>> > Richard p
>> > oints out, NPV doesn’t do what Senator Birch says he wants and what
>> > Rep.
>> > Anderson says is “fundamental.”
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Those of us who understand elections also understand that there are
>> > numerous ways to hold elections, and we know that huge numbers of
>> > elections
>> > are
>> > held in both private and public organizations that violate the majority
>> > rules concept – or even the plurality rules. Moreover, we know that
>> > voting
>> > procedures frequently place limits on majority opinion, the most obvious
>> > perhaps being super-majority requirements.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I don’t see any reason why having a president who did not receive a
>> > national plurality (let alone a national majority) is more inherently
>> > more
>> >
>> > disturbing than having a House or a Senate whose majority did not
>> > receive a
>> > majority or even a plurality of votes, or a speaker of the House or
>> > Leader
>> > of
>> > the Senate who was elected by members representing less than a majority
>> > or
>> > even a plurality.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > And there seems to be little reason to believe that the American people
>> > are particularly worked up about it either. Richard points out that we
>> > routinely elect executives who had more people vote against than for
>> > them –
>> > sometimes by quite substantial margins. Yet they do not face a crisis of
>> > legitimacy.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > In my observation, despite what they say when a single, out of context
>> > question is posed to them in a poll, people are much more attuned to
>> > following what seem to be reasonably fair, agreed upon rules in advance,
>> > rather
>> > than insisting that only one rule (majority or plurality rule) can ever
>> > be
>> > fair; majorities quite routinely accede to the desires of minorities;
>> > voting
>> > systems are quite routinely established to deny majority – let alone
>> > plurality – victory. By the same token, people are happy, in many
>> > cases, to
>> > accept
>> > plurality winners – so much so that Messrs. Bayh, Anderson, and others
>> > toss around the term “majority” when they appear to mean “plurality”
>> > without
>> > even thinking much about it.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > If we are to believe many NPV supporters, there should have been a
>> > national uproar after the 2000 election. Well, to some extent there was
>> > –
>> > but it
>> > was not over the electoral college. At all times very substantial
>> > majorities seemed quite content with the knowledge that the Florida
>> > winner
>> > would
>> > claim the presidency. Efforts to abolish or change the electoral
>> > college –
>> > including NPV – remained the hobby horses of a small number of
>> > well-financed
>> > good-government groupies, not any kind of mass movement.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > In short, we live in a country that is clearly dedicated to popular
>> > rule,
>> > but within the rule of law, and with popular not always – in fact
>> > perhaps
>> > surprisingly rarely – defined as majority or even plurality vote at any
>> > given moment.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > As a result, NPV proponents seem to constantly assuming what they ought
>> > to
>> > be proving – that NPV actually would result in better governance, or
>> > truly
>> > is more “fair” – once we define fair, and get beyond the facile
>> > proclamations such as those found in the movement’s magnum opus, Every
>> > Vote
>> > Equal.
>> > Here, I think that the case that has been made for effectively
>> > abolishing
>> > the electoral college is exceedingly weak, based more on horror stories
>> > of
>> > improbable counterfactual scenarios and presumed but not particularly
>> > probable reactions of the public to those scenarios.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Conversely, those who would defend the Electoral College need not
>> > defend
>> > the process for choosing a president in the House of Representatives,
>> > though
>> > I believe it can be defended – rather, they need to defend the
>> > Electoral
>> > College system as a whole against NPV, because it is the Electoral
>> > College
>> > that NPV seeks to effectively abolish, not just the House of
>> > Representatives
>> > contingency. That’s not that hard, if only because NPV supporters have
>> > done so little to show that NPV would result in better presidents or
>> > better
>> > government.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Bradley A. Smith
>> >
>> > Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
>> >
>> > Designated Professor of Law
>> >
>> > Capital University Law School
>> >
>> > 303 East Broad Street
>> >
>> > Columbus, OH 43215
>> >
>> > _(614) 236-6317_ (tel:(614)%20236-6317)
>> >
>> > _bsmith at law.capital.edu_ (mailto:bsmith at law.capital.edu)
>> >
>> > _http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp_
>> > (http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: _law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_
>> > (mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu)
>> > [mailto:_law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_
>> > (mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu) ] On
>> > Behalf OfRichard Winger
>> > Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 2:26 PM
>> > To: _law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
>> > (mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu) ; MarkScarberry
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Subject: Re: [EL] An Electoral College Tie?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I don't believe we should be so frightened of the idea that a winning
>> > presidential candidate might have received only 40% of the total
>> > popular
>> > vote.
>> > 45 of the 50 states elect their Governors like that. Whoever gets the
>> > most votes wins, period. Louisiana, Washington, California and Georgia
>> > force
>> > a majority vote by having a round with only two candidates on the
>> > ballot,
>> > and Vermont lets the legislature choose when no one gets a majority for
>> > Governor. In the other 45 states, a winning gubernatorial candidate
>> > just
>> > needs more votes than anyone else.
>> >
>> > The lowest share of the popular vote any winning gubernatorial
>> > candidate
>> > ever got in the last 170 years was in Washington state in 1912, when
>> > the
>> > Democratic nominee, Ernest Lister, won with only 30.6% of the popular
>> > vote.
>> >
>> > In that election, the Republican nominee got 30.4% and the Progressive
>> > nominee got 24.4%.
>> >
>> > Richard Winger
>> > _415-922-9779_ (tel:415-922-9779)
>>
>> > PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>> >
>> > --- On Thu, 12/15/11, Scarberry, Mark <_Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu_
>> > (mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu) > wrote:
>> >
>> > From: Scarberry, Mark <_Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu_
>> > (mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu) >
>> > Subject: Re: [EL] An Electoral College Tie?
>> > To: "_law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
>> > (mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu) "
>> > <_law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
>> > (mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu) >
>> > Date: Thursday, December 15, 2011, 11:02 AM
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > In such a case, would we really want the national plurality vote winner
>> > (perhaps with 40% of the vote) to become President?
>> > Perhaps if no candidate receives a majority of the electoral vote then,
>> > instead of the current system or the national popular vote system,
>> > there
>> > should be a choice of the President either by a joint session of
>> > Congress
>> > or
>> > by vote of the House (with each member having one vote).
>> > Of course that would require a constitutional amendment, but in my view
>> > it would also take a constitutional amendment to move to a popular vote
>> > system, at least to one that has a blackout period like the proposed
>> > NPVIC.
>> > Mark
>> >
>> > Mark S. Scarberry
>> > Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
>> > Malibu, CA 90263
>> > _(310)506-4667_ (tel:(310)506-4667)
>> >
>> >
>> > From: _law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_
>> > (mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu)
>> > [mailto:_law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_
>> > (mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu) ] On
>> > Behalf Of Justin Levitt
>> > Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 10:23 AM
>> > To: _law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
>> > (mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
>>
>> > Subject: Re: [EL] An Electoral College Tie?
>> >
>> > It's not just a tie that could send the election to the House of
>> > Representatives ... I believe it's any lack of a majority. If, for
>> > example, the
>> > Americans Elect candidate wins enough electoral votes to deprive either
>> > the
>> >
>> > Republican nominee or the Democratic nominee of an Electoral College
>> > majority, the House decides the election.
>> >
>> > Justin
>> > --
>> > Justin Levitt
>> > Associate Professor of Law
>> > Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
>> > 919 Albany St.
>> > Los Angeles, CA 90015
>> > _213-736-7417_ (tel:213-736-7417)
>> > _justin.levitt at lls.edu_ (http://mc/compose?to=justin.levitt@lls.edu)
>> > _ssrn.com/author=698321_ (http://ssrn.com/author=698321)
>> >
>> >
>> > On 12/15/2011 9:37 AM, Dan Johnson wrote:
>> >
>> > I'd love to see opponents of the National Popular Vote mount a robust
>> > defense of the House of Representatives in a
>> > one-vote-per-state-delegation
>> > selecting the President (the result of a not-implausible tie in
>> > electoral
>> > votes).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Because, after all, that is what they are defending. A tie will
>> > eventually
>> > occur. Let us hope that the National Popular Vote compact is
>> > established
>> > and confirmed by the Supreme Court before that mathematical certainty
>> > rears
>> > its ugly head.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Dan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Rick Hasen <_rhasen at law.uci.edu_
>> > (http://mc/compose?to=rhasen@law.uci.edu) > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > _“An Electoral College Tie?”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26579)
>> >
>> > Posted on _December 15, 2011 9:18 am_
>> > (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26579) by _Rick Hasen_
>> > (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
>> >
>> > National Journal _ponders_
>> >
>> > (http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2011/12/an-electoral-college-tie.php) .
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Dan Johnson
>> >
>> > Partner
>> >
>> > Korey Cotter Heater and Richardson, LLC
>> >
>> > 111 West Washington, Suite 1920
>> > Chicago, Illinois 60602
>> >
>> > _http://www.kchrlaw.com_ (http://www.kchrlaw.com/)
>> >
>> >
>> > _312.867.5377_ (tel:312.867.5377) (office)
>> > _312.933.4890_ (tel:312.933.4890) (mobile)
>> > _312.794.7064_ (tel:312.794.7064) (fax)
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Law-election mailing list
>> > _Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
>> > (http://mc/compose?to=Law-election@department-lists.uci.edu)
>> > _http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election_
>> > (http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election)
>> > --
>> > Justin Levitt
>> > Associate Professor of Law
>> > Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
>> > 919 Albany St.
>> > Los Angeles, CA 90015
>> > _213-736-7417_ (tel:213-736-7417)
>> > _justin.levitt at lls.edu_ (http://mc/compose?to=justin.levitt@lls.edu)
>> > _ssrn.com/author=698321_ (http://ssrn.com/author=698321)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Law-election mailing list
>> > _Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
>> > (http://mc/compose?to=Law-election@department-lists.uci.edu)
>> > _http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election_
>> > (http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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_
>> > (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_
>> > (mailto:rr at fairvote.org)
>> > _(301) 270-4616_ (tel:(301)%20270-4616)
>> >
>> > Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations --
>> > see
>> > _http://fairvote.org/donate_ (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!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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_
>> > (http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election)
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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_
>> > (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_
>> > (mailto:rr at fairvote.org)
>> > (301) 270-4616
>> >
>> > Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations --
>> > see
>> > _http://fairvote.org/donate_ (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!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 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!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
--
Dilexi iustitiam et odivi iniquitatem, propterea morior in exilio.
(I have loved justice and hated iniquity, therefore I die in exile.)
-- the last words of Saint Pope Gregory VII (d. 1085)
View list directory