'2 for 1' voting....could it work?

[California Dreamer]

The  following was in todays NYT oped. It proposes a way Nader can remain on the ballot, but have his votes added to Kerry's for the Electoral College, but doesnt involve instant runoff.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

this seems like an interesting idea...could it really work?


I think Nader is searching for a way to remain in the race, but avoid being a spoiler. However I cant see him doing this.

[Fritz]

Hyopthetically, even if Nader did do this, I don't think it would work the way the article writer suggests.

Lets suppose a state ends up with:
Bush 48%
Kerry 47%
Nader 3%
Other 2%

In this situation, I think Bush ends up being the winner, even if Kerry and Nader had the same slate of electors and their combined total ends up winning.  Kerry and Nader were on the ballot seperately, so their votes must be tallied as seperate from each other.

I see a court case looming if Dems tried to say the Kerry slate of electors won, in this hypothetical.

[classical liberal]

If you go by the original Constitutional method of EC voting, the plan is correct.  However, the Justice Scalia would have to decide whether he wanted to support his stated support of strict-constructionism or his political leanings towards favoring his friend and his other friend's son.  From a strict constructionist viewpoint, the electors are the people who are elected during the Presidential election by the people so the votes for those electors should count towards them regardless of a party.  Just as some senatorial candidates have received votes from L, C, Ref, and Independent party sections of the ballot.

[angus]

If you go by the original Constitutional method of EC voting, the plan is correct.  However, the Justice Scalia would have to decide whether he wanted to support his stated support of strict-constructionism or his political leanings towards favoring his friend and his other friend's son.  From a strict constructionist viewpoint, the electors are the people who are elected during the Presidential election by the people so the votes for those electors should count towards them regardless of a party.  Just as some senatorial candidates have received votes from L, C, Ref, and Independent party sections of the ballot.

but constructionism doesn't allow for one to pick and choose his favorite version of constitutional law.  It requires that a jurist look at the latest version of the document, amendments and warts and all.  Clearly this violates the current version.  And right now our highest law does not allow for the Nader plan.  Of course you and CaliforniaDreamer are welcome to help Ralph get the ball rolling on just such an amendment if it's important to you.  The instructions on changing its content were clearly spelled out by the framers, right?

[classical liberal]

There hasn't been an amendment that changes the election of electors.  States have instituted popular vote for a candidate to choose electors.  The state legislatures do still choose electors, only their chosing method has been corrupted by 200 years of political parties.

[angus]

ah, that was embarassing.  yes, I actually went back and read the original post carefully instead of assuming that it said something else.  nothing unconstitutional about that, as far as I can tell.  

also, you might consider spelling lobbyist correctly in your signature.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

On Inside Politics today, Judy asked Ralph Nader about this article.

Nader said he hadn't read Ackerman's article, but that it sounded like an "ingenious plan" and he would think about it.

My impression is that it would depend on each states ballot "fusion" laws.  Some states allow candidates to be nominated by more than one party and show up on the ballot multiple times, other states don't.  I imagine the same would apply to a slate of electors.

[7,052,770]

the ballot actually says in small letters "Electors for . . . "
so if the "Electors for . . . " Kerry are the same as the "Electors for . . . " Nader, then that slate of electors wins.

[California Dreamer]

Ackerman is not some kook on some fring website. He is a Yale Professor who has written books on elections and this is the NYTimes.

I think this concept is feasable...however it would certainly end up in the courts if Nader recieved more votes than the Bush-Kerry margin in any state.

What would Sandra Day O' Conner do if she found herself once again the deciding vote to put GWB into office?

[zachman]

Justice Kennedy might switch sides.

[classical liberal]

the ballot actually says in small letters "Electors for . . . "
so if the "Electors for . . . " Kerry are the same as the "Electors for . . . " Nader, then that slate of electors wins.

do you have pics of a ballot?

[© tweed]

Hyopthetically, even if Nader did do this, I don't think it would work the way the article writer suggests.

Lets suppose a state ends up with:
Bush 48%
Kerry 47%
Nader 3%
Other 2%

In this situation, I think Bush ends up being the winner, even if Kerry and Nader had the same slate of electors and their combined total ends up winning.  Kerry and Nader were on the ballot seperately, so their votes must be tallied as seperate from each other.

I see a court case looming if Dems tried to say the Kerry slate of electors won, in this hypothetical.

If that happens adn somehow Kerry ends up winning, it would spell the end of the EC.  And rightfully so.

[classical liberal]

Hyopthetically, even if Nader did do this, I don't think it would work the way the article writer suggests.

Lets suppose a state ends up with:
Bush 48%
Kerry 47%
Nader 3%
Other 2%

In this situation, I think Bush ends up being the winner, even if Kerry and Nader had the same slate of electors and their combined total ends up winning.  Kerry and Nader were on the ballot seperately, so their votes must be tallied as seperate from each other.

I see a court case looming if Dems tried to say the Kerry slate of electors won, in this hypothetical.

If that happens adn somehow Kerry ends up winning, it would spell the end of the EC.  And rightfully so.

No, if Bush has a plurality but Nader electors and Kerry electors are the same slate of people, then by the EC system the Kerry/Nader Elctors win the Elector nominations that all the states now masquerade as presidential elections.  It would signify a return towards the original consensus as the the process by which we choose our president.

[classical liberal]

I found a ballot picture:



By what the ballot says, if the electors are the same for Kerry and Nader then the "votes for group" will count towards the same group total, giving Kerry's electors the state's votes in the electoral college.

[classical liberal]

There's a problem with the plan though.  It's really the state legislatures that choose Electors.  Even if the popular vote gave a plurality or majority to the Kerry/Nader electors, the state legislatures could choose to go with the candidate of their choice regardless.  This type of plan would probably break the agreement of the 50 legislatures to select the electors that win the popular vote; states would once again go to the winners in the Legislature regardless of the popular vote.

What party controls each legislature?  I know MD is Dem and VA is GOP.

[Kevinstat]

I've been reading Maine law and I think Kerry and Nader could feasably have the same electors, which would be elected if Kerry and Nader combined got more votes than any other candidate even if neither candidate did individually, but it might not matter since Maine law instructs the electors to vote for the presidential and vice presidential candidates who got the most votes in either the state (for the at-large electors) or the congressional district (for the congressional district electors).  I know that law may be unenforceable, but if an elector or some electors did not vote for Bush if Bush recieved the most votes in the state would allow Republicans to make more of a stink than just accusing the Democrats and Nader of violating the intent of Maine law, which is FPTP.  Of course when it comes to winning a presidential elections the other side whining is not much of a deterrance, but this Maine law at least presents an obsticle to what I consider an otherwise brilliant plan.

Sincerely,

Kevin Lamoreau

[classical liberal]

That law must dictate that the eletors vote for the candidate whose electors received the most votes, since candidates themselves can not receive any votes and 0-0-0-0-0-0-0 give the EV's to noone.  Therefore the electors would actually be bound by that law to vote for Kerry if the Kerry/Nader electors actually receive more popular votes.

[agcatter]

Having Kerry and Nader share the same electors has a downside.  It undercuts kerry's attempts to make people think he's some kind of centrist.  Hitching his wagon in anyway to Nader would lose swing votes.  Very possibly could increase the Bush vote several points.  Everyone knows Nader is a leftist - not condusive to the new John Kerry I'm not really a lib line.

[classical liberal]

1/4 of Nader' support comes off of Bush in most polls, so it may not be so much to that degree.

[agcatter]

Yes, that is a good point   not all Nader voters are for Kerry.  Probably 3/4 is about right.

[Fritz]

The state legislature does NOT choose the electors- they pass laws that determine how electors are selected.  State legislatures could, theoretically, choose electors (and have been known to in the distant past), if they passed a law saying that is how electors will be chosen in that state.  That law would have to be on the books before any "election" took place, you can't change the rules after the election.  What the Florida legislature tried to do, before the SC ruled on Bush vs. Gore, was unconscionable, and I think a violation of its own state law.

[classical liberal]

Are you sure that the selection process is a law?  I was under the impression that it was a general consensus to vote unanimously with the popular vote.  If not then I can't find any problems with the plan.