[EL] 1884 and 1888 presidential elections

Wed Nov 28 08:28:51 PST 2012

The 1884 and 1888 presidential elections were somewhat similar to the 2008 and 2012 elections.  In both instances, the Democratic nominee was the same person both years.  Also, in both instances, only two states voted differently in each of the elections.

Grover Cleveland in 1888 carried every state he had carried in 1884 except Indiana and New York.  President Obama carried every state in 2012 that he had carried in 2008 except Indiana and North Carolina.

In 1884, Grover Cleveland only got 26% of his popular vote from the south, so I don't think it's a fair characterization to say he was just a regional candidate.

Richard Winger

415-922-9779

PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

--- On Wed, 11/28/12, Tara Ross <tara at taraross.com> wrote:

From: Tara Ross <tara at taraross.com>
Subject: Re: [EL] Two thoughts on the Electoral College and National PopularVote
To: "Paul Lehto" <lehto.paul at gmail.com>, "Sean Parnell" <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>
Cc: "law-election at UCI.EDU" <law-election at uci.edu>
Date: Wednesday, November 28, 2012, 7:51 AM

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)

-----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/20121128/f0c70f07/attachment.html>