[EL] Fairvote/Liptak electoral college
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Tue Mar 19 21:50:00 PDT 2013
If anyone replies to Mark (hi Mark!), please use the heading I've used
rather than the generic one.
Thanks.
Rick
On 3/19/13 9:47 PM, Mark Rush wrote:
>
> In Fairvote’
> <http://www.fairvote.org/new-york-times-perpetuates-myth-that-current-electoral-college-rules-help-small-states#.UUk7_Wdy2iI>s
> response to Adam Liptak’s NYT analysis of the Electoral College
> <http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/11/us/politics/democracy-tested.html>
> (and, particularly, how it helps small states), Fairvote makes the
> following comment:
>
> With winner-take-all, if one candidate is comfortably ahead in a state
> - or, as is the case with some 40 states today, one party is sure to
> win the state in the next close election, no matter who the candidates
> are - then that state's voters are good for only two things to
> presidential candidates: donating money and helping to influence
> voters in the handful of states that matter. Unless a small state is a
> swing state, presidential candidates will ignore it, just as they
> ignore the vast majority of other states of all sizes.
>
> I appreciate that this makes sense to a point. But it speaks more to
> the nature of campaigns than it does to the Electoral College.The same
> reasoning applies to big states too.The GOP needn’t waste too much
> money in New York State and the Dems don’t need to worry about losing
> it—unless, of course, as part of a coordinated national campaign,
> visits by presidential candidates can shore up the fortunes of their
> fellow partisans running for lower office.
>
> I am ambivalent about the Electoral College.Its design and impact is
> part of an electoral and constitutional system that is a hybrid
> democracy.Critics flog the myth that anything short of pure majority
> rule is undemocratic.But, the constitutional system is a hybrid
> designed to buffer and diffuse majority rule.
>
> In the end, then, I wonder whether the voting age population of the
> Dakotas, Wyoming or Rhode Island (as a percentage of the total
> presidential electorate) would be any more appealing a target to
> candidates than their 3 Electoral College Votes (as part of the 270
> necessary to win) would be.
>
> There is no doubt that if we were to change the presidential election
> rules, it would create new incentives for candidates which would cause
> them to change their behavior. I am not convinced that this would
> render small states any more potent in the electoral process.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu
> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
>
>
> “Republican Super PAC War Splits the Party”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48558>
>
> Posted on March 19, 2013 9:07 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48558> by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Roll Call
> <http://www.rollcall.com/news/republican_super_pac_war_splits_the_party-223293-1.html>:
> “A cottage industry of new Republican super PACs run by a diverse
> array of tea party activists, conservative organizers and
> established operatives is making the GOP look less like a
> political party than a collection of competing outside groups.”
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48558&title=%E2%80%9CRepublican%20Super%20PAC%20War%20Splits%20the%20Party%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
> political parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, political
> polarization <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68> | Comments Off
>
>
> Democrats Push Back Against IG Report on DOJ Voting Secton
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48554>
>
> Posted on March 19, 2013 8:44 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48554> by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Huffington Post:
> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/voting-section-report-politicization_n_2867329.html>
> “Former Justice Department officials are pushing back on a report
> released last week that they say falsely equates the Bush
> administration’s politicization of the department’s Voting Section
> with the Obama administration’s efforts to get the demoralized
> division back on track.”
>
> People have tried to spin me with the “false equivalence” argument
> too but I don’t buy it. The department is a mess, and it is way
> too ideologically polarized for a government agency.
>
> I made these points in my recent /Slate/ piece.
> <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/03/justice_department_s_inspector_general_report_is_the_voting_rights_section.html>It
> is interesting to me that this piece has gotten many fewer links
> and likes than my /Slate /pieces usually get. I attribute it to
> the fact that it has a message which does not appeal to
> liberals—that there’s still a problem of polarization and
> unprofessionalism in the department—and one which does not appeal
> to conservatives—that most of the problems they’ve flagged with
> the Obama DOJ in terms of biased enforcement and hiring decisions
> were rejected by the IG.
>
> As the IG concluded: “Other Department components—including
> components that specialize in subject areas that are also
> politically controversial, such as environmental protection—do not
> appear to suffer from the same degree of polarization and
> internecine conflict. We believe the difference is largely a
> function of leadership and culture, and that steps must be taken
> to address the professional culture of the Voting Section and the
> perception that political or ideological considerations have
> affected important administrative and enforcement decisions there.”
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48554&title=Democrats%20Push%20Back%20Against%20IG%20Report%20on%20DOJ%20Voting%20Secton&description=>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> |
> Comments Off
>
>
> “House Ethics Panel Finds Cause to Investigate 2 Lawmakers”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48551>
>
> Posted on March 19, 2013 8:28 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48551> by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NYT
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/us/politics/house-panel-finds-initial-evidence-of-ethics-abuses-by-2-lawmakers.html?ref=politics>:
> “The House Ethics Committee has found credible evidence that two
> lawmakers — a Republican from Alaska and a Democrat from New
> Jersey — improperly used campaign money for personal expenses,
> among other abuses.”
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48551&title=%E2%80%9CHouse%20Ethics%20Panel%20Finds%20Cause%20to%20Investigate%202%20Lawmakers%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
> conflict of interest laws <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>,
> ethics investigations <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=42> |
> Comments Off
>
>
> “Libertarian Party Wins Procedural Victory in Campaign Finance
> Case Involving a Bequest” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48548>
>
> Posted on March 19, 2013 8:24 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48548> by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> BAN
> <http://www.ballot-access.org/2013/03/19/libertarian-party-wins-procedural-victory-in-campaign-finance-case-involving-a-bequest/>:
> “On March 19, U.S. District Court Judge Robert L. Wilkins ruled
> that the Libertarian Party’s campaign finance case involving a
> bequest to the party can be certified to the entire panel of U.S.
> Court of Appeals Judges in the D.C. Circuit. The decision
> <http://www.campaignfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/LNCopinion.pdf>
> is 28 pages, followed by 20 pages of Findings of Fact.”
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48548&title=%E2%80%9CLibertarian%20Party%20Wins%20Procedural%20Victory%20in%20Campaign%20Finance%20Case%20Involving%20a%20Bequest%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
> The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
>
>
> “Can Arizona Demand Voters’ Proof of Citizenship?”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48544>
>
> Posted on March 19, 2013 8:22 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48544> by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> This audio segment
> <http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=174738252&m=174738245>appeared
> on NPR’s “Tell Me More.”
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48544&title=%E2%80%9CCan%20Arizona%20Demand%20Voters%E2%80%99%20Proof%20of%20Citizenship%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in Elections Clause <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>,
> The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
>
>
> “Kentucky law ambiguous on residency requirements”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48540>
>
> Posted on March 19, 2013 8:13 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48540> by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AP
> <http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Kentucky-law-ambiguous-on-residency-requirements-4367559.php>:
> “Talk of Tennessee resident Ashley Judd
> <http://www.sfgate.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Ashley+Judd%22>
> running for U.S. Senate
> <http://www.sfgate.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22U.S.+Senate%22>
> in Kentucky has turned up ambiguity in state residency
> requirements that a legislative leader says need to be cleared up.”
>
> Maybe I’m missing something but it seems to me that any state law
> which would keep a candidate for U.S. Senate off the ballot for
> not being a current resident would be an unconstitutional
> qualification for office which would be struck down in the event
> of a suit challenging the requirement.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48540&title=%E2%80%9CKentucky%20law%20ambiguous%20on%20residency%20requirements%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> |
> Comments Off
>
>
> Fairvote Takes on Adam Liptak on Small States and the
> Electoral College <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48537>
>
> Posted on March 19, 2013 8:05 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48537> by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> See here.
> <http://www.fairvote.org/new-york-times-perpetuates-myth-that-current-electoral-college-rules-help-small-states>
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48537&title=Fairvote%20Takes%20on%20Adam%20Liptak%20on%20Small%20States%20and%20the%20Electoral%20College&description=>
> Posted in electoral college <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=44> |
> Comments Off
>
>
> “RNC Growth And Opportunity Project Report Advises Super PACs”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48534>
>
> Posted on March 19, 2013 8:08 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48534> by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Paul Blumenthal
> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/rnc-growth-and-opportunity-project_n_2904756.html?1363704633>:
>
> Spend less on negative advertising and spend more on ground
> game. Target young voters, especially young women. Build a
> national database that includes e-mail and cell phone numbers.
> And, above all else, learn to work together.
>
> These were all suggestions in the Republican National
> Committee’s (RNC) 100-page Growth and Opportunity Project
> report
> <http://growthopp.gop.com/RNC_Growth_Opportunity_Book_2013.pdf> released
> on Monday, detailing what went wrong in the 2012 election and
> how to set the party in the right direction for future
> elections. Except these were not recommendations for the RNC,
> but recommendations by the RNC for the network of independent
> political groups that have exploded in size and number since
> the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling opened the
> door for unlimited independent spending.
>
> The litany of suggestions are notable in this very public
> report because election law forbids the GOP from certain
> crucial types of private coordination with these groups. By
> publicly airing its recommendations, the RNC can legally pass
> on suggestions to groups from Karl Rove’s Crossroads to the
> Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity and even the insurgent
> Club for Growth — suggestions that include spending and
> tactical advice that would otherwise be against the law if
> shared privately.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48534&title=%E2%80%9CRNC%20Growth%20And%20Opportunity%20Project%20Report%20Advises%20Super%20PACs%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
> Comments Off
>
>
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> 949.824.3072 - office
> 949.824.0495 - fax
> rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mark Rush
--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130319/655cbb80/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130319/655cbb80/attachment.png>
View list directory