[EL] Is plurality voting unconstitutional? Re: Rick's disagreement with my statement about Trump

[Thomas J. Cares]

I mean if we are talking about rigged elections. We definitely have
dubiously-legitimate elections that are rigged against moderates,
independents, and many others.

Imagine we were 10 cave people, trying to pick a leader, and 4 wanted to
run. Two of the more-like-minded candidates might decide to support each
other, with one backing out, to increase their chances of winning a
plurality. The other two would realize they have to do the same.

This McConnell vs. Reid thing we've been enjoying so much this last decade
is mathematically forced. Rigged.

By any arguments, is all of this no longer constitutional? Perhaps by the
mere virtue of its extensive deformation of a legitimate republic?

-Tom

Correction: You know an interesting legal discussion: if, with today's
technology, it could be deemed unconstitutional to use plurality voting
instead of ranked choice voting, because it substantively and needlessly
disenfranchises those who hold affection for nonviable candidates (or by
some other argument). Discuss.

On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Thomas J. Cares <Tom at tomcares.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Tom at tomcares.com');>> wrote:

> I thought the topic was about how the legal system could end up
> interacting with Trump's potential assertion of the election being rigged.
>
> You know an interesting legal discussion: if, with today's technology, it
> could be deemed unconstitutional to use plurality voting instead of ranked
> choice voting, because it substantively and needle disenfranchises though
> who hold affection for nonviable candidates (or by some other argument).
> Discuss.
>
> Thomas Jefferson Cares
>
> On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Schultz, David A. <dschultz at hamline.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> I think it is time to take this personal fight off this listserv. This is
>> not about election law in any reasonable construction of the topic.
>>
>> On Oct 22, 2016 1:17 PM, "Kathay Feng" <kfeng at commoncause.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I thought hard core conservative was a compliment, generally taken as a
>>> badge honor by those who choose to wear it.‎ Is it the "hard core" part
>>> that strikes you as an attack?
>>>
>>> I think Rick's been exceedingly fair in allowing the diatribes on both
>>> sides to fill our inboxes. Thanks, Rick, and thank you for reminding us
>>> that we can all choose to read with interest, respond, unsubscribe, or
>>> delete.
>>>
>>> ‎(delete)
>>> ‎
>>>
>>> *From: *Rick Hasen
>>> *Sent: *Saturday, October 22, 2016 6:33 AM
>>> *To: *law-election at uci.edu
>>> *Subject: *Re: [EL] Rick's disagreement with my statement about Trump
>>>
>>> If I'm counting right people on the list will now have seen this five
>>> times. There must be an issue on your end.
>>>
>>> Rick Hasen
>>> Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse typos.
>>>
>>> _____________________________
>>> From: jboppjr at aol.com
>>> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 6:29 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Rick's disagreement with my statement about Trump
>>> To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>, <law-election at uci.edu>
>>> Cc: <lowenstein at law.ucla.edu>
>>>
>>>
>>> This post was not emailed out.  I am asking that that be done.  Jim
>>>
>>> In a message dated 10/22/2016 8:59:56 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>>> rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>>>
>>> We have had some problems in the past with aol users receiving messages.
>>> One can always check archives to see if a message was sent out.
>>>
>>> Rick Hasen
>>> Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse typos.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 5:17 AM -0700, "JBoppjr at aol.com" <
>>> JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Several of my colleagues have told me that they don't see my post
>>> distributed by email, unless someone responds.  Same with me. I am
>>> resending this since it was not emailed out yesterday when I origionally
>>> sent it.  Jim Bopp
>>>
>>> In a message dated 10/21/2016 11:59:37 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>>> JBoppjr at aol.com writes:
>>>
>>> This is Rick's third personal attack on me in the last 3 days:
>>>
>>> The first and second are here:
>>>
>>> *Rick, this is the second time in so many days that you have personally
>>> attacked me.*
>>>
>>> *Yesterday you said:*
>>>
>>> *3.       If you don’t like the selection of articles, you can continue
>>> to send your own.  Or you can unsubscribe to this list. Or you can do with
>>> my posts what some list members tell me they do with yours: delete without
>>> reading.*
>>>
>>> *I am sure every one on this list serve has deleted posts without
>>> reading them, including myself, but I have never felt a need to personally
>>> attack them by publicly broadcasting that.*
>>>
>>> *And today:*
>>>
>>> *I always thought of you as a straight shooter before this election and
>>> this voter fraud garbage. We’ve disagreed but I’ve seen you as making
>>> fundamentally honest arguments. *
>>>
>>> *It is an unfortunate trait of some to assume that because they disagree
>>> with someone, the other one is being "dishonest."  I am sorry to see that
>>> you are in that number.*
>>>
>>> And now below Rick says:
>>>
>>> Of course, a comparable ad hominem attack that someone could, but
>>> shouldn't, make on Rick would be "For (Rick Hasen) to (attack) this
>>> statement which (ensures accountability in our electoral system by not
>>> waiving the possibilities of a recount in a close election) is
>>> disappointing but not surprising. (Rick) is a hard-core (leftist) who cares
>>> about the balance of power on the Supreme Court more that anything else. A
>>> (Trump) presidency could bring his years long project to (gut the First
>>> Amendment) to a halt."
>>>
>>> This statement shouldn't be made about Rick, not because it is not true,
>>> but because we should try to rise above these personal attacks if
>>> possible. And three in three days by Rick on me is really a bit too
>>> much. Jim Bopp
>>>
>>> In a message dated 10/21/2016 11:00:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>>> rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>>>
>>> *Jim Bopp and I Differ in Understanding Trump’s Comments About Not
>>> Conceding <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=87878>*
>>>
>>> Posted on October 21, 2016 7:47 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=87878>
>>>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> What else is new?
>>> <https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/788946270471749637/photo/1>
>>>
>>> [image:
>>> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=87878&title=Jim
>>> Bopp and I Differ in Understanding Trump’s Comments About Not Conceding]
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D87878&title=Jim%20Bopp%20and%20I%20Differ%20in%20Understanding%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20Comments%20About%20Not%20Conceding>
>>>
>>> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
>>> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>
>>
>
> --
>
>

--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161022/5ff77f56/attachment.html>