[EL] Toobin and House Results -- Re: ELB News and Commentary 11/18/18

Tue Nov 20 10:03:59 PST 2018

Larry, there were no votes counted at all in FL-10, 14, 21, and 24. You can
see that at Cook Political's vote tracker:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WxDaxD5az6kdOjJncmGph37z0BPNhV1fNAH_g7IkpC0/htmlview?usp=sharing&sle=true

Or check hereL
https://floridaelectionwatch.gov/FederalOffices/USRepresentative

Explanation of the ballot design implications for Nelson here:
http://mcimaps.com/browards-poor-ballot-design/

It's pretty fascinating how obscure these issues seem to be to people who
follow election administration issues closely.

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:18 PM <larrylevine at earthlink.net> wrote:

> I may have misunderstood Jeff’s message. I read it as saying no votes were
> counted in those districts. I think it was the size of the numbers that
> cause the misunderstanding. I supposed it could be argued that the lack of
> campaigning in those districts caused a lower turnout. But the visibility
> of the two statewide races would argue against that.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> *From:* Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> *On
> Behalf Of *Smith, Brad
> *Sent:* Monday, 19 November 2018 7:23 PM
> *To:* Jeff Hauser <jeffhauser at gmail.com>; David Segal <
> davidadamsegal at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Toobin and House Results -- Re: ELB News and
> Commentary 11/18/18
>
>
>
> How does that cause an undervote for Senate? They count the votes for
> Senate, just not for the uncontested race.
>
>
>
> *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 [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on
> behalf of Jeff Hauser [jeffhauser at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 19, 2018 9:43 PM
> *To:* David Segal
> *Cc:* Election Law Listserv
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Toobin and House Results -- Re: ELB News and
> Commentary 11/18/18
>
> One of many bizarre Florida laws means that zero votes are counted in 4
> deep blue districts where the GOP couldn't muster a candidate. This odd
> rule is not only a proximate cause of the FL-24 undervote for Senate (and
> thus Scott's victory, most likely), but probably renders 800,000 or some FL
> Dem voters invisible in these stats. (And maybe ~300,000 Republicans)
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018, 11:56 AM David Segal <davidadamsegal at gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> Dems as of now are up by 3.3 million in CA and 8.5 million over all across
> the country.
>
>
>
> Hard to assess, but looks like few hundred thousand of the 3.3 million
> vote gap could be attributed to top-two races w/o Rs.
>
>
>
> There were 4 D v D generals, 4 D v I/G generals, and 1 R v R generals. But
> most of these are races where an "opposite-party" challenger would have
> been getting low double digit percentages.
>
>
>
>
>
> D5
>
> 155k(D) - 42k(I)
>
>
>
> D6
>
> 129k(D) - 30k(D)
>
>
>
> D8
>
> 93k(R) - 61k(R)
>
>
>
> D13
>
> 246k(D) - 32k(G)
>
>
>
> D20
>
> 156k(D) - 37k(I)
>
>
>
> D27
>
> 144k(D) - 37k(D)
>
>
>
> D34
>
> 94k(D) - 35k(G)
>
>
>
> D40
>
> 78k(D) - 22k(D)
>
>
>
> D44
>
> 84k(D) - 37k(D)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 8:31 AM John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Getting back to the House vote, does California skew those results?
> Certainly in the Senate, there were two Democrats who split the entire
> vote.  I don’t know whether there were similar House contests
>
>
>
> On Nov 19, 2018, at 12:03 AM, <larrylevine at earthlink.net> <
> larrylevine at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> I was attempting to point to the irrelevance of citing a national vote
> total in races in which that number has no relevance. Apparently, I missed.
> However, I believe one of the purposes for the Electoral College was just
> this circumstance – to protect smaller states from the dominance of larger
> states. Another purpose was to shield against the election of a certain
> kind of candidate to be President, which doesn’t seem t have worked to well
> this time around.
>
> https://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.historycentral.com%2felections%2fElectoralcollgewhy.html&c=E,1,BCg_5G7fqaHpHuhWRnVC14ZWdccMSGcjwAL13cSUppUMK5TLoZwIbwoEh3bhzYsHoM7yyE0tZmt0SSJcSXnzHqd_1suuWL3Tb-yzNnF2dgqknx8JxgcT_dyUdGU,&typo=1>
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> *From:* Fredric Woocher <fwoocher at strumwooch.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, 18 November 2018 8:40 PM
> *To:* larrylevine at earthlink.net; jboppjr at aol.com; davidadamsegal at gmail.com;
> mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* RE: [EL] Toobin and House Results -- Re: ELB News and
> Commentary 11/18/18
>
>
>
> I don’t get your point here, Larry.  So what if Clinton’s entire margin
> was from California?  If one objects to the electoral college because it
> does not count everyone’s vote equally, why is 2016 not a legitimate
> example of the objection that the vote of 3 million Californians was
> overcome by the votes of 250,000 people in Montana and Wyoming (or whatever
> the vote margins were there)?
>
>
>
> Fredric D. Woocher
>
> Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
>
> 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2000
>
> Los Angeles, CA 90024
>
> fwoocher at strumwooch.com
>
> (310) 576-1233
>
>
>
> *From:* Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] *On Behalf Of *
> larrylevine at earthlink.net
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 18, 2018 7:18 PM
> *To:* jboppjr at aol.com; davidadamsegal at gmail.com;
> mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Toobin and House Results -- Re: ELB News and
> Commentary 11/18/18
>
>
>
> Agree, Jim, but still find it curiously interesting. What distorts the
> whole picture is California. It’s kind of like every time I hear someone
> say Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 by 3 million votes I recall that
> was her margin in California, so they just about broke even in the rest of
> the country. It comes up often when I do presentations and someone
> challenges the electoral college and uses the 2016 popular vote as
> justification for changing. I tell them they have a right to not like the
> electoral college, but 2016 is not a place to rest the argument.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> *From:* Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> *On
> Behalf Of *jboppjr at aol.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, 18 November 2018 6:46 PM
> *To:* davidadamsegal at gmail.com; mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Toobin and House Results -- Re: ELB News and
> Commentary 11/18/18
>
>
>
> I find the comparison between seats won and the total nation vote per
> party to be meaningless. We dont award seats based on the national vote per
> party , but by district, so campaigns are conducted by district, not to
> generate a maximum national vote.
>
> In addition, candidates matter more in District elections while they would
> be substantial less significant if the national vote count determined who
> won. If fact, Tip O'Neill's maxim that all politics is local would be
> repealed.
>
> So judging district-based elections by national proportional results is
> incoherent and invalid.
>
> Jim Bopp
> ------------------------------
>
> On Sunday, November 18, 2018 David Segal <davidadamsegal at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It'd be what you'd want taken in isolation (and I support systems that are
> more likely to yield proportionality than the current one) but Toobin
> should have contextualized the stat in the asymmetry relative to what
> happens under the current districts for Republicans.
>
>
>
> Repubs won 50.4% of the two parties' popular vote in 2016 but took 55.4%
> of seats.
>
>
>
> 52.9% vs 56.8% in 2014
>
>
>
> 49.3% vs 53.7% in 2012
>
>
>
> And also could have been spoken to in the context of the longer historical
> norm that Nicholas mentions. (Which isn't necessarily a positive feature of
> our system, and could be corrected for through PR.)
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 8:22 PM Mark Scarberry <
> mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu> wrote:
>
> Jeffrey Toobin, in the New Yorker article, writes:
>
>
>
> "Even the good news from the election comes with a caveat, however.
> According to an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice, Democrats won
> the over-all popular vote in the four hundred and thirty-five races for the
> House of Representatives by about nine per cent, but they managed to
> capture only a relatively narrow majority of seats. This is because the
> district lines are so egregiously gerrymandered, especially in states fully
> controlled by Republicans."
>
>
>
> Assuming my math is correct:
>
>
>
> A 9% margin would put the percentages at 54.5 to 45.5 (leaving aside third
> parties). Out of 435 seats, 54.5% would be 237, and 45.5% would be 198. It
> appears that, with a few races still to be decided, Democrats will have at
> least 232 seats and Republicans will have at least 198. If the five other
> raises split evenly, the division will be 234 or 235 Democrats, and 200 or
> 201 Republicans. Is this particularly disproportionate?
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> Prof. Mark S. Scarberry
>
> Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 4:09 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeffrey Toobin Expresses Some Optimism About Voting Rights
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d102371&c=E,1,_K9uCQmIVCDNV9lYfJrBXWoiB3obz5Uy7QCAFNwK7IRySAYCWNlVzWPdf-x3Lmvg90sNVWti3gMkMx5urJkfYJH7bKcsE4GCPhwgVHcP5zSOIw,,&typo=1>
>
> Posted on November 18, 2018 3:17 pm
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d102371&c=E,1,TlWZW1Pb3BVxgqoA43K6qkLx3lgC3Lrxoa0LNPQGpSdHTQdS3F12-ML5WZnuZ8w_9dkrLQBr-YJg7x8gvx4EVLRNANxbrORU2wvAoQM8MGPE0Ixj5w,,&typo=1>
>  by *Rick Hasen*
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fauthor%3d3&c=E,1,HDrbrCYMmUT6grm90oxkL7o79XaBD-XwBfzMDPp-5W9MJB22wnijfLDW03vm0zwv1yabP2cWblapfL5s1kwxUQcln3pyWUejb0jh3uVja-u7mDo0t1M,&typo=1>
>
> Not so sure I agree with this one
> <https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/11/26/how-voting-rights-fared-in-the-midterms>
> .
>
>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D102371&title=Jeffrey%20Toobin%20Expresses%20Some%20Optimism%20About%20Voting%20Rights>
>
> Posted in *The Voting Wars*
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D102371&title=Jeffrey%20Toobin%20Expresses%20Some%20Optimism%20About%20Voting%20Rights>
>
>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D102371&title=Jeffrey%20Toobin%20Expresses%20Some%20Optimism%20About%20Voting%20Rights>
>
> ...
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D102371&title=Jeffrey%20Toobin%20Expresses%20Some%20Optimism%20About%20Voting%20Rights>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> *Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu*
> *https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election*
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D102371&title=Jeffrey%20Toobin%20Expresses%20Some%20Optimism%20About%20Voting%20Rights>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> *Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu*
> *https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election*
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D102371&title=Jeffrey%20Toobin%20Expresses%20Some%20Optimism%20About%20Voting%20Rights>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> *Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu*
> *https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election*
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D102371&title=Jeffrey%20Toobin%20Expresses%20Some%20Optimism%20About%20Voting%20Rights>
>
>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D102371&title=Jeffrey%20Toobin%20Expresses%20Some%20Optimism%20About%20Voting%20Rights>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> *Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu*
> *https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election*
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D102371&title=Jeffrey%20Toobin%20Expresses%20Some%20Optimism%20About%20Voting%20Rights>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20181120/c0ab63c5/attachment.html>