[EL] if national popular vote plan had passed, Hillary would be the winner

[Smith, Brad]

This is horrendously wrong.

Actually, there was a tremendous amount of voter suppression in 1876. The troops simply couldn't be everywhere, and were badly undermanned. The situation was so bad that President Grant asked Congress to authorize martial law in the South, in order to protect black voters from the Klan and other violence. Congress refused to pass the measure (it had passed a similar measure in 1871). The Red Shirts and the White League were other major Democratic paramilitary groups. In South Carolina, Ben Tillman, primary sponsor of the Tillman Act, was a member of the Sweetwater Club, which assaulted blacks attempting to vote with regularity.

The election of 1876 was quite probably worse for violence against black voters than the election of 1888, because by 1888 southern whites could largely claim "mission accomplished" when it came to vote suppression.


Bradley A. Smith

Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault

   Professor of Law

Capital University Law School

303 E. Broad St.

Columbus, OH 43215

614.236.6317

http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx

________________________________
From: Richard Winger [richardwinger at yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 11:05 AM
To: Smith, Brad; Election Law Listserv
Subject: Re: [EL] if national popular vote plan had passed, Hillary would be the winner

There was no suppression of black votes in 1876, because the federal troops were still occupying the south.  That is why Mississippi's legislature sent two black US Senators to Washington, in the 1870's.

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


________________________________
From: "Smith, Brad" <BSmith at law.capital.edu>
To: Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com>; Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 5:27 AM
Subject: RE: [EL] if national popular vote plan had passed, Hillary would be the winner

Richard,

There is pretty little reason to include 1824, when not every state even counted popular vote and the campaign was entirely different. In 1876 and 1888 the Republicans would have won the popular vote except for massive suppression of black votes and Republican votes more generally by the Democrats in the deep south. In each of those elections, the electoral college actually helped to make sure that the candidate actually favored by a majority of the populace actually won the election, by isolating the Democratic vote suppression and fraud.

Even in 2000 and 2016, the results will be close enough that one can't really know what would happen in a system in which each candidate would have very different incentives on how and where to campaign.

All of this points up that our electoral structure reflects values other than raw popular vote totals. At the same time, the popular vote usually carries the electoral college, and the system is designed to assure that no one without substantial and widespread popular support can be elected.

Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
   Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
614.236.6317
http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Richard Winger [richardwinger at yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 8:17 AM
To: Election Law Listserv
Subject: [EL] if national popular vote plan had passed, Hillary would be the winner

With the greatest number of uncounted votes in California, Oregon, and Washington, by far, states that are very strong for Clinton, it is clear to me that she will have approximately 1,000,000 more popular votes than Donald Trump.

The Democratic Party has been the victim of the electoral college five times now:  1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016

Democrats should have been concentrating on passing the national popular vote plan instead of focusing on campaign finance reform.  Clinton's side spent far more money than Trump's side.  We should get over the idea that voters always vote for the candidate with the most spending.

Another reform Democrats should have been working for is instant runoff voting.  Yet just a few weeks ago Jerry Brown vetoed the California bill to expand instant runoff voting.

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161109/6ea2852e/attachment.html>