[EL] most states elected US House at-large in 1789

Tue Nov 27 10:50:39 PST 2012

In 1789, these states elected members of the US House at large: Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania.  The only states with district elections were Massachusetts, New York, South Carolina, and Virginia.  Delaware only had one representative.

North Carolina and Rhode Island didn't vote for Congress in 1788 or 1789 because they hadn't ratified the US Constitution in time.

Richard Winger

415-922-9779

PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

--- On Tue, 11/27/12, David Epstein <david.l.epstein at gmail.com> wrote:

From: David Epstein <david.l.epstein at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [EL] Two thoughts on the Electoral College and National Popular Vote
To: "Renee Christensen" <RChristensen at dcboee.org>
Cc: "law-election at UCI.EDU" <law-election at uci.edu>
Date: Tuesday, November 27, 2012, 10:19 AM

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’ 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

-----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/20121127/1259602e/attachment.html>