[EL] electoral college

[Thomas J. Cares]

A *Democratic nominee* would be in terrible shape trying to win without
California's votes and also with this third strong candidate, who'd also be
left of the GOP, in the mix too.

Democrats would have to get rid of their primary and just run in this
election.

Now, the republican primary is almost-objectively, a disaster. It's not a
process than can produce better candidates than this fantastic process
would. Even if they did, they'd probably have to have much nicer, more
moderate candidates to be able to compete with a winner of this kind of
primary.

But I anticipate no party could compete in a general election against a
winner that comes from a process this superior. The general election would
become a formality. The country may eventually realize that and do
something (amend the U.S. Constitution) to just make that kind of IRV NPV
election the official election.

I think this is actually as easy as a simple California initiative.

On Sunday, November 13, 2016, Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
wrote:

> One little flaw in your logic: “They would be in bad shape without
> California’s votes.” Didn’t the guy who just won this election do it
> without California’s votes?
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu');>
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu');>]
> *On Behalf Of *Thomas J. Cares
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 13, 2016 9:42 AM
> *To:* Mark Rush <markrush7983 at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','markrush7983 at gmail.com');>>
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','law-election at uci.edu');>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] electoral college
>
>
>
> What about the idea I posted on here a few days ago:
>
>
>
> California amends its constitution by initiative, requiring the state to
> do something very much like what Americans Elect was doing - create a party
> and qualify that party to be on the ballot in the general election for
> president in any state; create an internet 'primary', for all registered
> voters in the U.S.; use an instant runoff system in this primary.
>
>
>
> Alternatively, or additionally, California could create a vote by mail
> system; and, of course, the interesting thing is now that California is
> administering a 50-state (+DC) election.
>
>
>
> Now, the important part. California pledges to give its (whopping 55)
> electoral votes to the winner of this primary. We take the presidency off
> our general election ballot. Our EC votes are already decided.
>
>
>
> Now any democrats who want to be president have to win this election. They
> would be in bad shape without California's votes.
>
>
>
> The Democratic Party would have to eliminate their presidential primary.
>
>
>
> Now, I don't see how the Republican primary, whose electorate is such a
> subset of the national population, could produce candidates who could beat
> one who wins this primary.
>
>
>
> It would become the only election that matters.
>
>
>
> Realize, Bloomberg will never be president simply because he didn't want
> to have to run in a primary and he didn't want to have to run against both
> a democratic and republican standard bearer. He certainly could have had
> great chances in this kind of election. That might have set him up to go
> one on one against Trump. And he probably would have had excellent chances
> there.
>
>
>
> It seems so much easier than the NPV compact (which doesn't even make
> instant runoff voting possible right away, which is the most important
> reform here), and so much easier than amending the federal constitution
> (and ditto).
>
>
>
> California just needs to pass an initiative. And we'll never have
> presidential elections this awful ever again.
>
>
>
> I wish we could imagine what an advanced future would be like and then
> think of stepping stones to get there.
>
>
>
> A strong future civilization would not be choosing its leaders the way
> this last 18 months have gone. Those republican debates are too awful.
> Someone should really do something.
>
>
>
> This email isn't a call to action.
>
>
>
> This is an election law list serv. Can anyone red team this?
>
>
>
> -Tom Cares
>
>
> On Sunday, November 13, 2016, Mark Rush <markrush7983 at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','markrush7983 at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
> The EC is a manifestation of the federal system and the role of the
> states.
>
>
>
> True, were one designing a nation, an EC structure might never be
> incorporated into a new constitution.  BUT, its underlying structures--such
> a a senate or other institution to ensure that states/provinces are
> represented in the government and as a buffer against straight popular
> majority rule--would be.  Hence, if we look at other federal nations or the
> EU, we see gross disparities in voting power between large and small
> states/provinces.  Ontario has much less voting power per capita than New
> Foundland.  Same goes for Madrid and Barcelona v. small provinces such as
> Oviedo.  Germans are underrepresented when compared to Greeks or Belgians.
>
>
>
> If we are serious about getting rid of the EC, it would be incongruous and
> inconsistent not to call for dispensing with the US and all state senates.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 4:24 AM, RuthAlice Anderson <
> ruthalice.anderson at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Just for fun, there is a way to have the electoral and the popular vote
> reflect each other.
>
>
>
> http://mentalfloss.com/article/58809/us-map-redrawn-
> 50-states-equal-population
>
>
>
> Actually, it probably would not, but would certainly give us a more fair
> senate
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 10, 2016, at 8:08 PM, Thomas J. Cares <Tom at TomCares.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> My biggest problem with the electoral college is that it makes it
> impossible to use a national instant runoff system to elect the president.
>
>
>
> How can one defend it though?
>
>
>
> *It's about our system of states and their relationship with the federal
> government. The state is the constituent, not the individual. The
> individual is sort of a constituent of the president, *through their
> state*.*
>
>
>
> I still don't like it. I feel like it's hard to wrestle the power from
> small states, but I'd be okay with giving voters in small states extra
> weight on their votes - so small state voters still have the same
> arithmetic power they do now - to have a national popular vote with instant
> runoff voting (one election that allows multiple candidates, ideally
> without respect to party - i.e. 17 republicans on the general election
> ballot)
>
>
>
> Best part about that is eliminating the barf-worthy primaries. (Why didn't
> Americans Elect come back this year? Does anyone know? Are they ever coming
> back? (I don't know why the chose 2012, a referendum on Obama, to try their
> model) That question honestly deserves its own email.
>
> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016, Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> If the electoral college system is so great, why doesn't any state use it
> to elect its governor?
>
>
>
> No one can imagine that if this system didn't already exist, that any
> serious person would ever advocate for it.
>
>
>
> Among the countries in which the voters choose the head of government, no
> other country provides that the person who wins the most popular votes
> still doesn't take the office.
>
>
>
> "One person, one vote" may be a cliche, but it is a cliche that is
> accepted.  How we can respect the idea that every voter should be treated
> equally, and simultaneously support our existing system?
>
>
>
> Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* "Smith, Brad" <BSmith at law.capital.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','BSmith at law.capital.edu');>>
> *To:* Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','richardwinger at yahoo.com');>>; Election Law
> Listserv <law-election at uci.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','law-election at uci.edu');>>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 9, 2016 8:21 AM
> *Subject:* RE: [EL] if national popular vote plan had passed, Hillary
> would be the winner
>
>
>
> 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','BSmith at law.capital.edu');>>
> *To:* Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','richardwinger at yahoo.com');>>; Election Law
> Listserv <law-election at uci.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu');>
> [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu');>]
> on behalf of Richard Winger [richardwinger at yahoo.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mark Rush
>
>
>
> --
>


--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161113/1d001a92/attachment.html>