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

[Dan Johnson]

But the decision to select the winner of the national popular vote is
made by a majority of the Electoral College.

So it's the same majority winner system as we have today.

You can't claim the current system as a majority system -- with
plurality-by-state winners -- and not extend that to the NPV compact.

Best,
Dan

On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 7:20 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)



-- 
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)