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

Tue Nov 20 10:28:32 PST 2018

Brad, I wrote: "Explanation of the ballot design implications for Nelson
here: http://mcimaps.com/browards-poor-ballot-design/
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fmcimaps.com%2fbrowards-poor-ballot-design%2f&c=E,1,FWqxjKYzlKOt35C22YfTV7Hh8zQMYroOahjld2kGjCG4HvIBO5XWKkfgAMJ7Ko3tZIoBOGLCl4vguCIxjn03KYUjp4Pmsdm1iy3e24J4ZJmzQ10X3UVuEMio&typo=1>
 "

Have you read the link?

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 1:25 PM Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:

> Jeff, you said this was the cause of an undervote for senate and thus led
> to Scott's win. I'm still trying to figure that out. Are you claiming they
> didn't count votes for senate and other contested offices?
>
> Brad Smith
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 20, 2018, at 1:04 PM, Jeff Hauser <jeffhauser at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2ffloridaelectionwatch.gov%2fFederalOffices%2fUSRepresentative&c=E,1,t9EBJHOcRV-DamIUAwSOBsOtmmj8_lnFffk_RnO1cbggz8Jj-8RFidfFzeLQoRI_1ACIRNwzIiWW9J_qvoa5aVnd39x8EsBJTGUhtZa0RYW93ymRu9OQlt8j-L7I&typo=1>
>
> Explanation of the ballot design implications for Nelson here:
> http://mcimaps.com/browards-poor-ballot-design/
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fmcimaps.com%2fbrowards-poor-ballot-design%2f&c=E,1,FWqxjKYzlKOt35C22YfTV7Hh8zQMYroOahjld2kGjCG4HvIBO5XWKkfgAMJ7Ko3tZIoBOGLCl4vguCIxjn03KYUjp4Pmsdm1iy3e24J4ZJmzQ10X3UVuEMio&typo=1>
>
> 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/f6827130/attachment-0001.html>