[EL] Two thoughts on the Electoral College and National PopularVote

[Tara Ross]

Paul (and I think a few others) have made a completely fair and
legitimate point.  There is no urgency this election year to get the
counting done.  If there were more urgency, some things would be moving
faster.  Yes, good point. I should have acknowledged it before.

 

On the other hand, there is also no controversy this year.  Controversy
would slow the counting down and hamper our ability to reach a certain
election outcome.  For reasons I've outlined on this list serv before,
the Electoral College has helped to control controversy, fraud and other
vote counting problems.  We should not dismiss those benefits too
lightly.

 

I am at a loss to understand why electoral certainty is supposedly at
odds with democracy.  So lawsuits, recounts and controversy, complete
with each side's lawyers manipulating the legal system to their
benefit.....that's more democratic?  And why is pure democracy the only
"fair" way to determine the people's intent?  Such a statement assumes
the very matter in question. The Founders did not make such an
assumption.  Instead, they left themselves open to the idea that a
presidential election process can legitimately require candidates to
obtain support from a majority of some other aggregate of individuals.
In this case, the Founders opted for a system that would require a
majority of states' votes.  Candidates are required to obtain a
majority-but it is a federal majority, not a majority among individuals.
Historically, this system has done a great job of determining who has
the support of most Americans nationwide. We are better off with these
national candidates than with more regional candidates like Grover
Cleveland (1888).  Had Cleveland won that year, he would have done so
because he ran up his vote totals in the South.  Why should a handful of
Southern states be able to pick a President for the rest of the country?
Why is that purely democratic outcome more fair?

 

 

 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Paul
Lehto
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 2:54 PM
To: Sean Parnell
Cc: law-election at UCI.EDU
Subject: Re: [EL] Two thoughts on the Electoral College and National
PopularVote

 

 

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/20121128/a9318a6e/attachment.html>