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

[Paul Lehto]

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Sean Parnell <
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com> wrote:

> [...] 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.
>

It's really doubtful anything would still be undecided today if late
counted ballots were seen by election officials as of equal importance to
election day ballots, absent orders staying vote counts.  All of the votes
could have been counted by this time and even days earlier if there was
anything pressing the issue, but statutes such as California's make the
deadline 31 days so like all deadlines the tendency is not to get things
done "early."

Election officials generally count fewer votes each day (as a general
trend) and in California they take their leisurely time because they are
given leisurely time by statute to do so.  It seems everyone in campaigns,
some in the media, and some election officials are sufficiently burned out
by the time election day finally passes that they feel they badly need a
vacation and often take one.  These officials are greatly assisted in not
having a sense of urgency with regard to completing counts by the actions
of many on this listserv, who have already written all the original drafts
and some final drafts of what this election "means" - undermining the
motivation to take the remaining vote counting seriously even though late
counted ballots are demographically different than election day ballots.

The false assumption in Sean's argument and in the USA Today editorial is
that the amounts of time being taken are really needed when the time is not
needed.  Had Los Angeles County for example subcontracted this task it
could have been done long ago, even by hand counting.

In addition, the purpose of a voting system is two-fold: to measure voter
intent and to generate evidence of error or fraud that the administrative
and legal systems can act upon as appropriate.  The purpose of voting
systems is not to generate or output a "conclusive" result, as Sean states
above.  From the standpoint of any democracy or republic the only desirable
"conclusive" result is in situations where the intent of the voters is in
fact "conclusive" -- which is not in all cases.

The desire for a "conclusive" result is not a democratic desire unless and
until it is shown that the intent of the people is 'conclusive."  It really
should not be a problem to wait a couple of weeks if that is truly what it
took to properly count all the votes, but as I say above, this amount of
time is not necessary under present circumstances.

Paul R. Lehto, J.D.

**
>

-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4965 (cell)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121127/491b2c58/attachment.html>