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