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

Thu Nov 10 09:50:59 PST 2016

But I think it is safe to say that the US is unique in that the
president/head of state/strongest party/chief executive/whatever you want
to call where the true power lies can be selected without a plurality of
votes.

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Sean Parnell <
sparnell at philanthropyroundtable.org> wrote:

> One line from the piece jumped out at me:
>
>
>
> “But if the candidate who got fewer votes wins the White House for the
> second time in five elections, it could put a new spotlight on the peculiar
> way that America picks its presidents — *one not shared by any other
> democracy*.”
>
>
>
> This is technically true, but I’m not sure it’s quite as powerful an
> argument as suggested. In the U.K., for example, the Prime Minister
> (roughly comparable to our President) isn’t elected directly by the
> citizens of that nation, instead it’s effectively chosen by members of the
> largest party in parliament. A parliament filled with members who do not,
> it is worth noting, have constituency sizes that are equal (or thereabouts)
> – Isle of Wight has 118,00 or so people vs. 22,000 for Na h-Eileanan an Iar
> (see: http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/elections/
> electoralregistration/bulletins/electoralstatisticsforuk/2014-05-01). And
> of course we don’t have a Queen in the U.S. (OK, maybe Queen Bey) to ask an
> MP to become PM and form a government.
>
>
>
> The point is, there are plenty of forms of democratic governance in which
> the public at large does not directly select the chief executive/head of
> state. So while it may indeed be “peculiar” to use the electoral college,
> it’s not at all peculiar to not have direct election of chief
> executive/head of state.
>
>
>
> Sean Parnell
>
> Vice President for Public Policy, The Philanthropy Roundtable
>
> 1120 20th Street NW, Suite 550 South
>
> Washington, DC  20036
>
> (202) 600-7883 (direct)
>
> (571) 289-1374 (mobile)
>
> sparnell at philanthropyroundtable.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *
> zacharyr46 at gmail.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 10, 2016 8:58 AM
> *To:* Lorraine Minnite <lminnite at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] if national popular vote plan had passed, Hillary
> would be the winner
>
>
>
> Totally agree with Prof. Minnite. Here's my piece on this for those
> interested:
>
>
>
> http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/electoral-
> collage-lesson-more-voters-chose-hillary-clinton-trump-will-n681701
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Nov 10, 2016, at 7:52 AM, Lorraine Minnite <lminnite at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Brad is right that there are different values expressed in the original
> constitutional design of our electoral system and the means by which a
> president is chosen.  But those values always were and continue to be
> contested.  We are all know the many ways in which our system is not
> robustly democratic; for example, the more democratic direct representation
> of the House of Representatives stands in contrast to the original indirect
> election of Senators, and less democratic representation in the Senate of
> the states.  The Electoral College falls into the 'less democratic' of our
> political institutions.
>
> I'd like to go back to the assertion that, "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."   I think this too easily brushes aside the
> critique of the Electoral College from the standpoint of a robust
> democratic ideal.  Brad suggests campaigning would have been different if
> the national popular vote plan had been in place in 2016, and that this
> might have produced a different outcome, I guess with Donald Trump winning
> a plurality of the votes.  I don't find the critique credible.  For
> example, I find it hard to believe that either candidate would simply have
> concentrated their efforts in the states where they knew they had strong
> support in order to boost their numbers (i.e., Clinton spending all of her
> time in California, New York, and New Jersey, or Trump spending all of his
> time in Mississippi or Oklahoma).
>
> Moreover, the impact on campaign strategy misses the larger point that we
> now again, only 16 years into in the 21st century will have twice installed
> presidents who lost the popular vote.  I find that shocking and very
> disconcerning.
>
> On 11/9/16, 11:21 AM, Smith, Brad wrote:
>
> 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 <614.236.6317>*
>
> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
> <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> <BSmith at law.capital.edu>
> *To:* Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com> <richardwinger at yahoo.com>;
> Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu> <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 <614.236.6317>*
>
> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
> <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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Law-election mailing list
>
> 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
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
Dilexi iustitiam et odivi iniquitatem, propterea morior in exilio.

(I have loved justice and hated iniquity, therefore I die in exile.)

    -- the last words of Saint Pope Gregory VII (d. 1085)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161110/2e8b3aa0/attachment.html>