[EL] Excuses the day after the election

[Mark Rush]

Hey David--

good reference to Tocqueville.  It's an oft-cited one and I like it.  But,
it was hardly a note of praise on his part.  (IMHO).  With friends like
Tocqueville, we need to be able to identify damnation via faint praise.

What I find quite intriguing is a comparison between the American tendency
to cloak partisan politics in the garb of Tocquevilian litigation
(seemingly to resolve things in a legal, nonpartisan manner) and measures
of corruption in other nations that are cast in terms either of out and out
quid pro quo cost of doing business or malignant bureaucratic procedures.
In all three cases, the cost of getting things done skyrockets.

So, sadly, we probably can look forward to endless sanctimonious litigation
in the wake of a close race.

cheers to all

On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:37 AM, David A. Schultz <dschultz at gw.hamline.edu>wrote:

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



-- 
Mark Rush
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121105/cc69ddc2/attachment.html>