It seems to me that what Ackerman is proposing is de facto fusion. It would permit other states to do what NY state does by law -- allow a candidate to run on more than one line and aggregate the votes... I think viability would depend on the laws of the individual states. I do not know hoe many states require a pledge from Electors.  I am sure that many do not... I believe there are some states which still print the names of the electors themselves on the ballot.  In those states there might be a solid basis for Ackerman's plan.  On the other hand there are a number of states which specifically disallow fusion -- i.e. a candidate  may not run on more than one line Does that include candidates for Elector?.... In the final analysis, each state would have to decide on its own which slate of electors was elected pursuant to its own laws, in the event that Nader did  nominate the same electors as Kerry.  That might mean a contest as to which slate of electors was actually elect!
 ed, and could create a contest in Congress as to which electors to certify.  But, of course, since both Houses are controlled by the Republicans, it is pretty clear how such contests would be resolved!

Prof. Frank Askin
Constitutional Litigation Clinic
Rutgers Law School/Newark
(973) 353-5687

Ethan Fletcher <ethan.fletcher@yale.edu> 05/05/04 03:39PM >>>

If Nader named the same slate of electors as Kerry, knowing those 
individuals had already pledged to support Kerry, would they have to 
likewise pledge to support Nader?  That is, as an independent candidate, 
could Nader nominate the same electors as Kerry without requiring a pledge 
of fidelity?  Obviously, this would make a vote for Nader (and thus the 
Kerry-committed electors) more nakedly symbolic, but it might resolve the 
moral issue.

Ethan Fletcher
1L
Yale Law School



At 07:30 AM 5/5/2004 -0700, ban@richardwinger.com wrote:

I am trying to get a letter published in the NY Times,
with this text, in response to Professor Bruce
Ackerman's "2-for-1 voting" op-ed of today.

Bruce Ackerman's "2-for-1 Voting" (NY Times of May
5)
says that the 538 Democratic candidates for
presidential elector this year should pledge to vote
for John Kerry for president, and that these 538
individuals should also simultaneously pledge to
vote
for Ralph Nader for president.  The suggestion is
absurd and immoral on its face.  Honorable people do
not make pledges that they do not, and cannot,
intend
to keep.  It is impossible for one presidential
elector to vote for two different individuals for
president.  No state elections officials would
accept
such declarations, and no court would force them to
do
so.

Ackerman's column contains a grain of truth.
Approximately half the states have no legal barrier
to
two different political parties jointly nominating
the
same slate of presidential elector candidates (it
isn't possible to specify an exact number of states,
because of technicalities such as whether each of
the
two parties are qualified, etc.).  Thus, two
different
political parties can jointly nominate the same
presidential candidate, as was done by the
Democratic
and Peoples Parties in 1896.  But that is not the
same
thing as individual candidates for presidential
elector claiming falsely that they will vote for two
different individuals for president.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover