[EL] national unity tickets are not rare in history

Sat Nov 12 14:44:32 PST 2011

The idea of a presidential candidate of one party and a vice-presidential candidate of another party, on the same ticket, is not a new idea, either in the U.S. or overseas.

The Republican Party changed its name to the Union Party in 1864, and the national convention chose a Democrat for vice-president to run with Lincoln.  This was because the party realized it had to appeal to northern partisan Democrats.  Most people thought Lincoln would be defeated early in 1864.  The war, for the north, was going very badly early in 1864.

In 1840, the Whig Party chose a Democrat for vice-president, John Tyler.  In 1872 the Democratic Party chose a Republican for president, Horace Greeley.

In Britain, during World War I and also during World War II, there were cabinets representing all the major parties, because the country was under terrible stress and it needed a government of national unity.

The United States faces huge challenges.  We cannot keep doing the same thing we have been doing.  Some historians have noted profound shifts in U.S. and British history every 72 to 75 years.  For the U.S., those shifts have been 1789, 1860, 1933, and we are about due for another one.  In any event, no matter what you think about that, we should cheer innovation.

Richard Winger

415-922-9779

PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

--- On Sat, 11/12/11, Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net> wrote:

From: Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: [EL] American elect
To: "'Rick Hasen'" <rhasen at law.uci.edu>, richardwinger at yahoo.com
Cc: "'law-election at UCI.EDU'" <law-election at uci.edu>, "'BradSmith'" <BSmith at law.capital.edu>, "'Paul Lehto'" <lehto.paul at GMAIL.COM>
Date: Saturday, November 12, 2011, 2:36 PM

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? Posted on November 12, 2011 12:45 pm by Rick Hasen Yesterday I noted that this letter to the editor from Americans Elect in response to my Politico oped 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 the following: “Political science professor Darry A. Sragow, also a California Democrat, has written this 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. Posted in ballot access | 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-differing-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 <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
From: Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [EL] American elect
To: "Larry Levine" <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
Cc: "law-election at UCI.EDU" <law-election at uci.edu>, "Smith, Brad" <BSmith at law.capital.edu>
Date: Friday, November 11, 2011, 7:32 PMIf 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> 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
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Bev
Harris
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 11:04 AM
To: Smith, Brad
Cc: law-election at UCI.EDUSubject: Re: [EL] American electI'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

* * * * *

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://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

-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1 
Ishpeming, MI  49849 
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at 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/20111112/0d2785c9/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/20111112/0d2785c9/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/20111112/0d2785c9/attachment.jpg>