[EL] American elect

Sat Nov 12 14:36:53 PST 2011

The notion of a balanced ticket is so nebulous as to be laughable. What is
balanced? One candidate who is for the war in Iraq and against Afghanistan
and a running mate who is against the war in Iraq but for Afghanistan? So,
if we have that does one have to be for a balanced budget amendment and the
other against it? Does one have to be pro-death penalty, pro-choice and
against gun registration, while the other is anti-death penalty, anti-choice
and for gun registration? To achieve true balance just on these five issues
would require more than two candidates. 

I learned in my first campaign nearly 41 years ago that there is not real
definition of an independent voter beyond the fact that he or she is not
aligned with any political party. When it comes to ideologies and positions
on issues, the notion of defining an independent becomes hopelessly
illusive. Saying "Democrats and Republicans agree" is no way to appeal to
independents because those voters have made a decision to not care what
Democrats or Republicans think. Finally, who is the final arbiter of what is
a balanced ticket.  

Larry

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick
Hasen
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 11:47 AM
To: richardwinger at yahoo.com
Cc: law-election at UCI.EDU; BradSmith; Paul Lehto
Subject: Re: [EL] American elect

Does Americans Elect Have a Point-by-Point Rebuttal to Offer to My Oped?
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25356>  

Posted on  <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25356> November 12, 2011 12:45 pm
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

Yesterday I noted <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25347>  that this letter to
the editor <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68156.html>  from
Americans Elect in response to my Politico oped
<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67965.html>  did not respond to
my three main points about the problem with the group: "(1) the group has
offered no reason to fail to disclose its donors; (2) its internet election
plans are troubling because they are insecure; and (3) the group's by-laws
and draft rules allow the Board to overrule voters who participate in
choosing a candidate."

Richard Winger, in this post, reported
<http://www.ballot-access.org/2011/11/11/two-california-professors-take-diff
ering-views-of-americans-elect/>  the following: "Political science
professor Darry A. Sragow, also a California Democrat, has written this
<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68156.html>  response to the
Politico editor, disputing Hasen's points. However, he does not attempt a
detailed rebuttal, because Politico wouldn't let him post his own full
op-ed, and limited him to a short letter."

When I saw this, I wrote to Richard and offered Americans Elect up to 2,000
words on my blog to include a detailed rebuttal.  (My own oped was about
1,000 words.)  Richard has communicated this to Americans Elect.  We shall
see if Americans Elect chooses to offer a detailed rebuttal on this site, on
its own site, or anywhere else.

<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%
3Fp%3D25356&title=Does%20Americans%20Elect%20Have%20a%20Point-by-Point%20Reb
uttal%20to%20Offer%20to%20My%20Oped%3F&description=> Share

Posted in ballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>  | Comments Off

On 11/12/2011 11:39 AM, Rick Hasen wrote: 

Richard, 
I don't read the rule as barring the Candidate Certification Committee from
concluding a ticket is unbalanced even if it has two members from different
parties.  Further, the by-laws of the organization say that the Board not
only appoints this committee, it can remove any and all members of any
committee with or without cause.

Here is the relevant language on "deeming" the ticket balanced.  

On 11/11/2011 7:40 PM, Richard Winger wrote: 

http://www.ballot-access.org/2011/11/11/two-california-professors-take-diffe
ring-views-of-americans-elect/

The Americans Elect board can't overrule the presidential choice of the
voters in the AE presidential primary, if the presidential candidate and the
vice-presidential candidate are of opposite major parties.  Rick Hasen did
not say they could overrule, in his original Politico piece.  But when he
summarized what he said a few days later, he used a short-hand that made it
seem that they can.

Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

--- On Fri, 11/11/11, Paul Lehto  <mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com>
<lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Paul Lehto  <mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com> <lehto.paul at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [EL] American elect
To: "Larry Levine"  <mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>
<larrylevine at earthlink.net>
Cc:  <mailto:law-election at UCI.EDU> "law-election at UCI.EDU"
<mailto:law-election at uci.edu> <law-election at uci.edu>, "Smith, Brad"
<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu> <BSmith at law.capital.edu>
Date: Friday, November 11, 2011, 7:32 PM

If you combine secrecy/non-transparency like AE has, with a Pollyanna
attitude that says outlandish conspiracies are laughable (which they are)
the paradox is that outlandish conspiracies have a free hand to flourish,
because all the sensible people will laugh at the allegations, and the
secrecy/non-transparency will hide things from being plain-as-day.

Conspiracies flourish under secrecy.  They seek it out.  Conspiracy is one
of the most commonly proven criminal charges in court, not an improbable
oddity.  All "conspiracies" constitute are agreements to do something
illegal or (outside law) to do something socially undesirable.  

The same spirit that laughs off the risks of secrecy with its facilitation
of conspiracy that goes with it, would laugh every time US fighter jets were
scrambled because there MIGHT have been a Soviet or other attack, but really
it was a flock of birds on the radar - or whatever.... 

If people really care about something, and if they think it through, they
will act to overprotect somewhat.  Sentinels of democracy, so to speak,
people who want to protect democracy, will err on the side of safety like a
sentinel.  Just get up off their butts and check out the noise they heard,
even if they're pretty sure it was just a cat or dog.

I understand, fully, the humor behind outlandish combinations of folks
imagined as a conspiracy - part of humor is surprise and the unexpected.

But when it comes to AE Rick Hasen's points are exactly correct.  If the
Board of Directors can overrule the voters, that alone makes it
undemocratic.  Then add the secret, non-transparent vote counts and secret
donors, and you have the conditions for problems including but not limited
to conspiracy, and they have triply redundant facilitation:  the secrecy
alone is sufficiently fatal, add the directors over-ruling the voters and
that alone is also fatal.  How many deaths must respect for democracy die
before its election-law defenders ALL see the problem?

Paul Lehto, J.D.

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net
<http://us.mc1126.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=larrylevine@earthlink.net> >
wrote:

I am reminded here of the comment I made a few minutes ago about reforms and
reformers who become wedded to the notion that they are about to save the
world only to find out later that the world doesn't really want to be saved.
This whole American Elect thing may be the wackiest one yet. It adds up, in
my estimation, to "I don't like the way things are now so I'm going to come
up with something that pushes the boundaries of the law and turns the
electoral process on its head no matter what the outcome." I start with an
innate distrust of anyone who thinks they know better than everyone else.
And listening to the advocates of AE, that's what I am feeling. One thing is
certain: it will help either the Dems, the Reps, or neither. Oh, yeah,
there's another certainty - some people will be attracted to it because they
just love sticking sticks in the spokes. If it wasn't this it would be
something else.
Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
<http://us.mc1126.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=law-election-bounces@departme
nt-lists.uci.edu> 
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
<http://us.mc1126.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=law-election-bounces@departme
nt-lists.uci.edu> ] On Behalf Of Bev
Harris
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 11:04 AM
To: Smith, Brad
Cc: law-election at UCI.EDU
<http://us.mc1126.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=law-election@UCI.EDU> 

Subject: Re: [EL] American elect

I've recently read that Americans are more concerned about protecting their
hubcaps than protecting their vote. Perhaps that goes for election attorneys
as well.

While election lawyers on this list are ridiculing critics of
AmericanSelect.org, you ignore the point Rick Hasen made about the complete
lack of transparency and questionable (read: "impossible") security problems
of its Internet voting scheme.

A quick aside to Rick Hasen - I was glad to see your article, but the issue
is not "security", it's "transparency". You can never secure a computer
against its own administrator, so that's actually a moot point. The
insoluble problem of Internet voting is that it can never be publicly
authenticated. It conceals who voted, chain of custody of the votes, and the
count from the public, rendering the election nonpublic and controllable by
whoever controls the server.

Whether Peter Ackerman is well intentioned or not is irrelevant. If guessing
about people's intentions was relevant, banks could just stop videotaping
teller transactions. Instead, they could just focus on hiring employees who
are "well intentioned."

Regardless of whether Peter Ackerman is well intentioned, he appears to be
scarily clueless about how Internet voting actually works. He's not the only
one -- I met with Senator Mike Gravel, who is pushing for direct democracy
using Internet voting.

Also at this meeting was M.I.T. computer security expert Ron Rivest. Rivest
explained to Gravel that Internet voting cannot be secured. In a side
conversation with me, Rivest also admitted that it is not and never will be
possible to secure a computerized voting system from its own administrator.

I'm sure that ridiculing imaginary conspiracy theories is more fun than
discussing how the mechanism used by AmericanSelect to control the choosing
process actually alters public ability to self-govern.

Bev Harris
Founder - Black Box Voting
http://www.blackboxvoting.org <http://www.blackboxvoting.org/> 

* * * * *

Government is the servant of the people, and not the master of them. The
people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right
to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them
to know. We insist on remaining informed so that we may retain control over
the instruments of government we have created.

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
<http://us.mc1126.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Law-election@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://us.mc1126.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Law-election@department-lists
.uci.edu> 
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1 
Ishpeming, MI  49849 
lehto.paul at gmail.com
<http://us.mc1126.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lehto.paul@gmail.com> 
906-204-4026 (cell)

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
<http://us.mc1126.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Law-election@department-lists
.uci.edu> 
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-- 
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org

-- 
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111112/1f6cbebe/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111112/1f6cbebe/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 143904 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111112/1f6cbebe/attachment.jpg>