[EL] Does 269-269 worsen the faithless elector problem?

Fri Oct 26 14:14:40 PDT 2012

The only time.  Richard Johnson

Jerry H. Goldfeder
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
212-806-5857
917-680-3132
JGoldfeder at Stroock.com<mailto:JGoldfeder at Stroock.com>
www.stroock.com/goldfeder<http://www.stroock.com/goldfeder>

On Oct 26, 2012, at 4:38 PM, "Richard Winger" <richardwinger at yahoo.com<mailto:richardwinger at yahoo.com>> wrote:

Faithless electors mattered in the election of 1836.  They prevented the Democratic Party nominee for vice-president from winning in the electoral college.  The U.S. Senate had to choose the vice-president that year.

Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

--- On Fri, 10/26/12, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>> wrote:

From: Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Does 269-269 worsen the faithless elector problem?
To: "'JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>'" <JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>>, "john at johnkoza.com<mailto:john at johnkoza.com>" <john at johnkoza.com<mailto:john at johnkoza.com>>, "derek.muller at gmail.com<mailto:derek.muller at gmail.com>" <derek.muller at gmail.com<mailto:derek.muller at gmail.com>>, "law-election at UCI.EDU<mailto:law-election at UCI.EDU>" <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Date: Friday, October 26, 2012, 1:26 PM

I’ve never quite understood why, if you favor the electoral college, there is any reason to worry about “faithless” electors. And given that there has never been a “faithless” elector that mattered (and little reason to think any “faithless” elector would have remained “faithless” if it had), I think there is even less reason to worry about it.

Bradley A. Smith

Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault

  Professor of Law

Capital University Law School

303 East Broad Street

Columbus, OH 43215

(614) 236-6317

bsmith at law.capital.edu</mc/compose?to=bsmith at law.capital.edu>

http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 12:02 PM
To: john at johnkoza.com<mailto:john at johnkoza.com>; derek.muller at gmail.com<mailto:derek.muller at gmail.com>; law-election at UCI.EDU<mailto:law-election at UCI.EDU>
Subject: Re: [EL] Does 269-269 worsen the faithless elector problem?

Here is the Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act.

Click here: Faithful Presidential Electors Act<http://www.uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Faithful%20Presidential%20Electors%20Act>

I was on the Drafting Committee and I think it is an admirable bipartisan effort worthy of adoption. We ran it by the National Popular Vote people and this Uniform Law works even if that is adopted.

We believe it would fix the unfaithful elector problem as well as fix other potential problems such as vacancies, etc.

Thank you for recommending it, John  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 10/26/2012 11:43:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, john at johnkoza.com</mc/compose?to=john at johnkoza.com> writes:

State legislatures should give some attention to, and pass, the Uniform Law Commission’s “Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act.”  The Act has several of the features of North Carolina’s current law. The Act provides a statutory remedy in the event a presidential elector fails to vote in accordance with the voters of his or her state. The Act has a state-administered pledge of faithfulness, with any attempt by an elector to submit a vote in violation of that pledge, effectively constituting resignation from the office of elector. The proposed uniform law calls for the election of both electors and alternate electors. The Act provides a mechanism for filling a vacancy created for that reason or any other.

Dr. John R. Koza

Box 1441

Los Altos Hills, California 94023 USA

Phone: 650-941-0336

Fax: 650-941-9430

Email: john at johnkoza.com</mc/compose?to=john at johnkoza.com>

URL: www.johnkoza.com<http://www.johnkoza.com/>

URL: www.NationalPopularVote.com<http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/>

From: Derek Muller [mailto:derek.muller at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 5:15 PM
To: Election Law
Subject: [EL] Does 269-269 worsen the faithless elector problem?

Dear all,

Perhaps one of you knows the answer to this problem. If the electoral vote is tied at 269, the race is thrown to the House of Representatives, where, it is assumed, Mitt Romney would win.

But, I imagine that there would be a significant amount of canvassing of Mr. Romney's electors by Barack Obama's team in an attempt to win over just one of those electors and break the tie. After all, we would likely know most of the electors shortly after November 6, but the electors would not cast ballots until December 17.

Additionally, the contingent election in the 12th Amendment allows for the top three electoral vote-getters to be voted on in the House. If it's 269-269, isn't there a great incentive for, say, one of Mr. Obama's electors to vote for Jill Stein, or one of Mr. Romney's electors to vote for Gary Johnson or Ron Paul? Then, we might have an even more absurd contingent election: 269 electoral votes for Mr. Obama; 268 electoral votes for Mitt Romney; 1 vote for Ron Paul; top three thrown into the House. (Which adds an additional problem: what if there are several candidates who each receive a single castaway electoral vote? Who wins the coveted third slot before the House if Ms. Stein, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Paul all receive 1 electoral vote?)

Best,

Derek

Derek T. Muller

Associate Professor of Law

Pepperdine University School of Law

24255 Pacific Coast Hwy.

Malibu, CA 90263

+1 310-506-7058

SSRN Author Page: http://ssrn.com/author=464341

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu</mc/compose?to=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</mc/compose?to=Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

________________________________
IRS Circular 230
Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS in Circular 230, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachment that does not explicitly state otherwise) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.