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

[Sean Parnell]

Tara's correct that the lack of urgency no doubt contributes to the slow
counting process this time around. But it should be noted that at this point
in 2000, with some degree of urgency in the air, things were still
unsettled. According to the US Election Atlas
<http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/ARTICLES/pe2000timeline.php> , on
November 28, 2000:

 


. 

Democrats ask Leon County Circuit Court Judge N. Saunders Sauls to authorize
an immediate recount of about 14,000 disputed ballots. Judge Sauls orders
the disputed ballots, sample voting booths, and voting machines from
Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties brought to his courtroom in Tallahassee
by Friday.

 

Of some interest as well should be the following descriptions of actions by
Florida's legislature on December 12 and 13:

 

.         In a 79-41 vote, the Republican-run Florida House approves 25
electors pledged to George W. Bush.

.         The Florida Senate - scheduled to vote on a resolution certifying
electors for Bush - recesses instead.

 

It's hardly beyond the realm of possibility that in the midst of
Florida-like vote chaos in several states across the country, several NPV
compact states would find themselves unable to determine who the 'national
popular vote winner' was with any degree of certainty and simply do what
Florida was in the process of doing - reclaiming their plenary authority to
determine how their state's electors are chosen, and voting in their own
preference (or assuming a clear preference expressed by the voters of their
own state, voting with the popular vote in their own state). Of course,
there would be more litigation on that as well.

 

 

Sean Parnell

President

Impact Policy Management, LLC

6411 Caleb Court

Alexandria, VA  22315

571-289-1374 (c)

sean at impactpolicymanagement.com

 

From: Tara Ross [mailto:tara at taraross.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:52 AM
To: Paul Lehto; Sean Parnell
Cc: law-election at UCI.EDU
Subject: RE: [EL] Two thoughts on the Electoral College and National
PopularVote

 

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/20121128/1b02a532/attachment.html>