[EL] reinforcing my point about the day after the election

[Richard Winger]

In the last 132 years, Republicans presidential nominees have consistently been good losers.  Thomas Dewey lost by a far closer margin than most people nowadays realize.  If just 29,294 voters in Illinois, California, and Ohio had shifted from Truman to Dewey, Dewey would have won.  But Dewey did not imply the results were fraudulent or illegitimate.

In 1960, Richard Nixon would have been elected if just 11,874 voters in Illinois, Missouri, New Mexico, Hawaii, and Nevada had shifted from Kennedy to Nixon.  There were reasons to question the Illinois vote.  But, as is quite well known, he didn't question the legitimacy of the count.

In 1976, Jerry Ford would have been elected if just 9,299 voters in Ohio and Hawaii would have shifted from Carter to Ford.  This also presumes that the disobedient Republican elector in Washington state would have voted for Ford, instead of doing what he actually did, which was to vote for Ronald Reagan.  But Jerry Ford didn't question the legitimacy of the count, even though there were irregularities he could have publicized.


Richard Winger

415-922-9779

PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

--- On Sun, 11/4/12, Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [EL] Excuses the day after the election
To: law-election at uci.edu, "David A. Schultz" <dschultz at gw.hamline.edu>
Date: Sunday, November 4, 2012, 3:48 PM

I don't feel nearly this gloomy.  I think Mitt Romney, assuming he loses (or appears to lose) will be a patriot and a good-hearted person who will try to heal the partisan wounds and will call for national unity.

Richard Winger

415-922-9779

PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

--- On Sun, 11/4/12, David A. Schultz <dschultz at gw.hamline.edu> wrote:

From: David A. Schultz <dschultz at gw.hamline.edu>
Subject: [EL] Excuses the day after the election
To: law-election at uci.edu
Date: Sunday, November 4, 2012, 2:37 PM


Come the day after the election there is a fantasy many of us have that the losing side  in the presidential race will tell the winning side that it was a hard fought and close campaign but that the winner won fair and square.  Unfortunately that will not occur, especially in light of all the pre-election litigation and legal posturing.

Assuming Obama wins, I suspect the argument Republicans make is that the election stolen.  Assume Obama wins close races in Wisconsin and
 Pennsylvania, Republicans claim that were it not for a court suspending or invalidating voter ID in those states Romney would have won.  Obama?s victory was a product of fraud.  In Ohio the message will be that the courts allowed too many provisional ballots and therefore fraud occurred, and in Florida they will argue that relaxation of some of the restrictions on voter registration and early voting will be the cause of ineligibles voting.  A few will also point to how mediocre a candidate Romney was, but the big issue will be fraud.

Conversely, on the slight chance that Romney wins, the cry will be that voter suppression across these states is the reason for the loss. A few will point to how mediocre a candidate Obama was, but the big issue will be voter suppression.

I am suspecting these talking points are already being cued up by members of this listserv and the two parties in anticipation of efforts to justify
 litigation, de-legitimize the winner, and prepare us for the fact that on November 7, we will be less than two years away from the next elections.

Tocqueville got it right: ?There is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one.  Consequently the language of everyday party-political controversy has to be borrowed from legal phraseology and conceptions.?

David Schultz, Professor
Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
Hamline University
School of Business
570 Asbury Street
Suite 308
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651.523.2858 (voice)
651.523.3098 (fax)
http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
Twitter:  @ProfDSchultz
Skype:  david.schultz1958
Named one of the inaugural 2012 FacultyRow SuperProfessors


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

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121104/5d8df051/attachment.html>