[EL] Two thoughts on the Electoral College and National Popular Vote

[David Epstein]

Sean's item #1 parallels my thinking after the 2000 election, as I sat
pondering why the nation didn't rise up as one in rejecting the
anti-democratic nature of the electoral college.

One answer, of course, was that if the election was that close anyway,
people thought you might as well flip a coin to select the winner, or go
through the Supreme Court, which is basically equivalent. (Just kidding; I
couldn't resist, given the audience.)

At a more fundamental level, though, the original idea of the electoral
college was to break the national election for president into a number of
state elections, because at that time the communications difficulties in
running a truly national election were seen to be insuperable. (At the time
of the founding, of course, these were the only federal state-wide
elections, since senators were still selected by state legislatures.)

These days the communications aspect has been solved, but with more states
and more voters, the prospect of having to do a nation-wide recount in a
close race is enough to give one pause when contemplating a true NPV
scheme. So the original logic of the electoral college still holds, if for
a different reason.

David


On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Renee Christensen <RChristensen at dcboee.org
> wrote:

>  Just a comment re “17 states have completed their tallies”.  Not sure if
> the author is using the phrase “completed their tallies” deliberately, or
> mixing up “completed their tallies” with the state’s final action of
> certifying election results.****
>
> ** **
>
> Here in DC, the Board of Elections has completed the tallying of votes, is
> currently doing a statutorily required pre-certification audit, with
> tentative certification scheduled for Thursday.    ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Sean Parnell
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 27, 2012 11:52 AM
>
> *To:* law-election at UCI.EDU
> *Subject:* [EL] Two thoughts on the Electoral College and National
> Popular Vote****
>
>  ** **
>
> Two items came across my Twitter feed today (h/t to Rick for both) that I
> think have some bearing on the whole National Popular Vote/Electoral Issue.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> **1.       **Apparently only 17 states have completed their count of all
> ballots, per this USA Today editorial (as a rule, I abhor citing
> editorials, but I’m going to trust they got this fact right):
> http://usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/11/26/counting-votes-voting-system/1728529/I think the implications for National Popular Vote are pretty obvious – had
> this been a closer election (say, Bush-Gore or Kennedy-Nixon close) we’d
> still not know who the president was, and there would be horrific legal
> battles being waged right now all across the country over which ballots
> should or should not be counted. The Electoral College seems to have
> provided conclusive clarity rather quickly. ****
>
> **2.      **Second, apparently there’s a theory floating around out there
> that Romney could still be elected by the House of Representatives if a
> number of states voting for Romney failed to submit their electoral votes,
> depriving the Electoral College of a quorum (see here:
> http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/11/27/2360565/lawmaker-shares-last-chance-idea.html).
> Absolute malarkey, to borrow from our Vice President. Still, it does help
> to show the fallacy of what I call the ‘English Bob’<http://www.quotefully.com/movie/Unforgiven/English+Bob>theory touted by advocates of National Popular Vote, which is basically
> that the passage of NPV would be so popular and accepted that there would
> be little thought of challenge through the courts or legislative hanky
> panky. To paraphrase, “Well there's a dignity to National Popular Vote. A
> majesty that precludes the likelihood of partisan games. If you were to
> attempt to draft a lawsuit or bill aimed at changing the election your
> hands would shake as though palsied. I can assure you, if you did, that the
> popularity of NPV would cause you to dismiss all thoughts of resistance and
> you would stand... how shall I put it? In awe.”****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> And yes, I have been waiting for a long time to unleash my English Bob
> analogy.****
>
> ** **
>
> Best,****
>
> ** **
>
> Sean Parnell****
>
> President****
>
> Impact Policy Management, LLC****
>
> 6411 Caleb Court****
>
> Alexandria, VA  22315****
>
> 571-289-1374 (c)****
>
> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121127/b6e8ddb9/attachment.html>