[EL] electoral college

[Schultz, David A.]

Ok, folks, let's have fun and let me throw my two cents into this.
Consider this a thought experiment.

Electoral College Do Your Job: Make Clinton President
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/2016/11/electoral-college-do-your-job-make.html

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Douglas Carver <dhmcarver at gmail.com> wrote:

> Mark Rush's defense of the Electoral College is a bit strange since there
> have been plenty of other forms of democratic governance created since
> 1789, and somehow they have neither used the EC nor dispensed with
> bicameral legislatures, in the main. (Plus, of course, Nebraska seems to
> get along fine with a unicameral legislature.)
>
> His point does raise the interesting question of the power of the Senate
> in our system, which is unusual for an upper chamber in a bicameral system.
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Thomas J. Cares <Tom at tomcares.com> wrote:
>
>> And how solvable are these issues?
>>
>> On the first, I'm thinking CA puts it in its constitution that the winner
>> of such a national primary will get to choose California's electors on, or
>> shortly after, the mandated date, and that the electors might have to make
>> a binding pledge (though it might be better if they don't, to allow
>> candidates to settle a <270 issue, rather than the house, with the 1 vote
>> per state thing).
>>
>> The second point concerns me. The legality of a state behaving, in other
>> states, the way Americans Elect behaved in 2012, achieving ballot access.
>>
>> I'm definitely interested to hear thoughts from this list about that,
>> maybe the state constitutional amendment would have to require the state,
>> perhaps through a new, funded, commission, to try to contract with an NGO.
>> This issue feels like the big question mark for me.
>>
>> Then, doesn't my first paragraph address both your first and last
>> paragraph?
>>
>> Essentially, the way things are now, the results of the 11/9 election
>> decides that CA appoints Clinton electors. Why can't the state change its
>> constitution such that the results of this new national primary determines
>> which electors are appointed (and California not even place the presidency
>> on its general election ballot).
>>
>> -Tom Cares
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, November 13, 2016, Mark Scarberry <
>> mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Another problem is that a state cannot appoint electors prior to the
>>> congressionally mandated election date.
>>>
>>> The California legislature could commit (by nonbinding promise) to
>>> appoint electors in accordance with the outcome of such a "primary" but
>>> could not be bound
>>>
>>> There is also a problem with the state somehow creating one party for
>>> its primary.
>>>
>>> Finally, even if such a scheme could otherwise bind the legislature as
>>> of an early date, it would not be a manner by which *the state* appoints
>>> electors. An action  of a national voting population isn't an appointment
>>> by the state, per McPherson.
>>>
>>> Mark Scarberry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____________________________
>>> From: Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 9:57 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [EL] electoral college
>>> To: Thomas J. Cares <tom at tomcares.com>, Mark Rush <
>>> markrush7983 at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: <law-election at uci.edu>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 [
>>> mailto: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>
>>> *Cc:* 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> 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-state
>>> s-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>
>>> *To:* Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com>; Election Law Listserv <
>>> 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*
>>>
>>> *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>
>>> *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
>>> <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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Mark Rush
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>



-- 
David Schultz, Professor
Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
Hamline University
Department of Political Science
1536 Hewitt Ave
MS B 1805
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651.523.2858 (voice)
651.523.3170 (fax)
http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
Twitter:  @ProfDSchultz
My latest book:  Presidential Swing States:  Why Only Ten Matter
https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780739195246/Presidential-Swing-States-Why-Only-Ten-Matter
FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161113/c4efcdfb/attachment.html>