[EL] electoral college

[Thomas J. Cares]

So they are pretty solvable?

I mean this feels like the most merited and feasible solution to the
problem of the electoral college AND the messy presidential primaries.

-Tom

On Sunday, November 13, 2016, 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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-
>> 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>
>> *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
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
>

--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161117/6dba803c/attachment.html>