election questions

[James Maule]

Interesting point. Underlying all of this is the desperation, the desperation of wanting to win so badly that the temptations are real. I much prefer the notion of being called, a la Cincinnatus. If called, and one accepts, one serves. One does not seek. One lets one's  qualifications and positions be known. "If you elect me I will serve" is much more appealing than "I want you to vote for me because I WANT to be.....whatever." Granted, I am heavily influenced by how calls work in my church. No one campaigns. Somehow our "qualifications" and interests are known. If called, we serve unless we choose not to accept the call. If not called, life goes on. It doesn't end. There's no need to look for tricky ways to wiggle past the outcome. My reason for voting as I did (guess) was not so much that I was overly enthused about the person I called but that I was (and remain, and now with more reason) very afraid of someone who so desperately wants to be a public official. It's scary.

At least we're not yet totally back in ancient Rome with folks throwing denarii or sestarii to the legions who've arrived to remove the imposters. Yet.



Jim Maule
Professor of Law
Villanova University School of Law
Villanova PA 19085
maule at law.villanova.edu
http://vls.law.vill.edu/prof/maule


>>> masinter at NOVA.EDU 11/08/00 02:33PM >>>
I think the long term consequences for a poltical party that publicly
seeks to alter the presumptive results of the election by appealing to
electors to vote for a different candidate than the candidate chosen by
their voters would be disastrous. I imagine state laws which purport to
bind electors are unconstitutional, and that therefore the outcome of the
election would turn on the actual votes of those electors.  But I also
think that the party (presumably the democratic party) which sought to
convince them to vote for (presumably Gore) would forever taint itself.
I think it speaks volumes that in an election as closely contested as
ours, people today are going about their lives rather than burning
Congress.  We trust our institutions, and political parties should think
very carefully before attacking that trust.  I would recommend against it.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I voted for Gore.

Michael R. Masinter                     3305 College Avenue
Nova Southeastern University            Fort Lauderdale, Fl. 33314
Shepard Broad Law Center                (954) 262-6151
masinter at nova.edu                       Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel

On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Alex Aleinikoff wrote:

> Al Gore's Campaign Chairman Bill Daley appears to have stated that if
> Bush has won Florida that Gore and Lieberman are prepared to concede
> the election.  Should they?  Here's a counter-argument, based on the
> assumption that Gore has won the popular vote (and that the Nader
> votes in Florida cost Gore the election). Obviously, the country is
> divided right down the middle.  The Senate may well be tied [although
> even if 50-50, is it correct that Lott remains Majority Leader?]; the
> House is nearly tied. To give the White House to Bush would allow
> Republican domination of both branches--permitting a Vice President
> who received fewer votes than his opponent to cast tie-breaking votes.
> In such circumstances, why shouldn't the Democrats try to build a
> popular campaign to have electors "vote their conscience" or establish
> a "fusion government."  I'm not sure what form such a proposal could
> take.  Consider the following suggestions:  (1) that electors split
> their ballots for Bush and L! ieberman, or Gore and Cheney [note that
> the 12th Amendment calls for distinct ballots for President and Vice
> President; and the requirement that no elector vote for both a
> President and Vice President from their own state means that the
> Constitution might require an electoral to ignore the vote of his or
> her state.]; (3) that electors adopt proportional rather than unit
> voting rules; or (3) that electors carry out a public debate when they
> "meet in their respective states." Several questions:  to what extent
> are electors bound by state law to vote as a unit for the winner of
> the state?  would campaigns for "open voting" by electors create too
> great a potential for mischief?  would it be inconsistent with the
> constitutional design?  is it finally time to get rid of the electoral
> college?
>
> Alex Aleinikoff
> Georgetown University Law Center
> aleinikt at law.georgetown.edu
>
>