Subject: Re: [EL] problem with winning strategy in IRV elections
From: Larry Levine
Date: 11/12/2010, 11:48 AM
To: Douglas Johnson <djohnson@ndcresearch.com>, 'Justin Levitt' <Justin.Levitt@lls.edu>, "election-law@mailman.lls.edu" <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>

The history of increased "independent" expenditure directly parallels the imposition of contribution limits on campaigns. The first ever independent expenditure occurred in L.A. City Council races in the first election after the adoption of spending limits. The first ever independent expenditures in California races came right after the passage of Prop. 208. With no spending limits in place for the next election after Prop. 208 was set aside by the courts, there were no independent expenditures anywhere in the state. Then came the contribution limits of Prop. 34 and since then "independent" expenditures have all but taken over the electoral process.
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Johnson
To: 'Justin Levitt' ; election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: [EL] problem with winning strategy in IRV elections

Seen any of it in the IRV elections? Given how hard it is to differentiate IE from candidate campaigns (especially at the local level), I think the candidates themselves have to actively discourage potential "expose" IEs.

 

And relying on IEs to provide vital information to voters seems an acknowledgement that the system is flawed, isn't it? It may still be "the worst system, except all the others," but that's a pretty significant flaw.

 

- Doug

 

From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Justin Levitt
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 10:11 AM
To: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] problem with winning strategy in IRV elections

 

I was under the impression that political spending by entities independent of candidates had been growing rather substantially in this era.  :)

Justin

On 11/12/2010 9:17 AM, Douglas Johnson wrote:

At the risk of re-opening an earlier discussion that some probably wish stay closed, I would point out that the strategy to "Concentrate on Being the 2nd or 3rd Choice" means "Don't say anything negative or revealing about your opponents" -- and that lack of information for the voters is how a jurisdiction (even one as large as San Francisco) ends up with electing someone who claims to reside in a vacant building and who, upon taking office, immediately starts committing extortion.

 

Voters may say they dislike "negative campaigns," but in this era if the other candidates (and their campaign teams) are not checking up on their opponents, who will?

 

- Doug

 

Douglas Johnson

Fellow

Rose Institute of State and Local Government

Claremont McKenna College

o 909-621-8159

m 310-200-2058

douglas.johnson@cmc.edu

www.RoseReport.org

 

 

From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 5:47 AM
To: Election Law
Subject: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 11/12/10

 

"The Winning Strategy in Oakland: Concentrate on Being 2nd or 3rd Choice"

See this report from "The Bay Citizen" (as reprinted in the NY Times Bay area edition). More on the Oakland race from Fairvote (and here).

Posted by Rick Hasen at 05:37 AM 

 
 
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law



-- 
Justin Levitt
Associate Professor of Law
Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
919 Albany St.
Los Angeles, CA  90015
213-736-7417
justin.levitt@lls.edu
ssrn.com/author=698321

_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law