election questions

[David R. Dow]

sandy levinson's sort-of argument for a revolution is typically
provocative, but it is implausible to think that a revolution is timely
when no one even understands what the revolution is about. it would be a
rebellion of constitutional lawyers and pundits, not the people.  (the
concept of the electoral college is alien enough to nonlawyer observers;
now to start talking about treating the electors as if they are somehow
chosen for their deliberative qualities is just absurd.)

but whether gore should challenge the florida vote is an entirely different
matter.  chicanery is common in politics, but i doubt that it ordinarily
affects the outcome.  this time, it might well have.  i voted for nader
(though the more i hear him the more i regret my vote), but i think gore
has a responsibility to challenge the results in florida if he in good
faith believes them to be tainted.  i would have reservations about the
prudence of his doing so if he had not won a majority of the popular vote.
but he apparently did.

-- d.dow


At 03:06 PM 11/8/00 -0600, you wrote:
>At 03:26 PM 11/08/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>>I'd just like to register my concurrence as another Gore supporter who
>>would not favor a revolt of the electors if the popular vote and the
>>electoral vote diverge.
>>
>>This was not the kind of campaign of which constitutional revolutions are
>>made.
>>
>>-- Gerry Neuman
>>
>Both Michael Masinter and Gerry make me feel as I'm being irresponsible in
>not taking the high road that they do.  But a couple of points:  A)  The
>first "constitutional revolution" was the degradation of the electoral
>college from a truly deliberative assembly to an instrument of crass party
>politics.  We've been living (more or less happily) with the results of
>that revolution since 1800, and Larry Kramer makes a strong argument that
>it is *only* the existence of a moderately strong party system that allows
>us to overcome the byzantine system of separated powers and checks and
>balances that the Framers inflicted upon us.  B)  Another "constitutional
>revolution" was Baker v. Carr and, then, Reynolds v. Sims, which contrary
>to any plausible notion of original intent or, for that matter, guidance by
>a thoroughly opaque text, revolutionalized our understanding of
>constitutional democracy by emphasizing "democracy" over "constitutional."
>C)  As my colleague Frank Cross, suggests, for an elector to exercise
>independent judgment is no more "contra-constitutional" than, say, the
>impeachment of Bill Clinton.  The constitution allows all sorts of
>possibilities.  I tend to agree with Michael and Gerry that it would not be
>a good idea, prudentially, for this to be resolved via a faithless elector,
>incidentally.  D)  If one is strongly partisan, as I am (probably a
>needless confession), then I'm not willing to take a "let's be good sports"
>view about the prospect of our governor becoming the next president when
>his election is indeed doubly tainted, first by his being patently the
>choice of a minority of the voters and secondly by the alleged voting
>irregularities in Florida.  The Tushnet-Aleinikoff argument about
>"coalition government" strikes me as a far more sensible solution to the
>problem than abstract embrace of the importance of finality.  If Bush
>*does* become president because Gore is a good sport and doesn't challenge
>the tainted Florida results, then I certainly hope the Democrats in the
>Senate filibuster to death any supreme court nominations that are even
>slightly to the right-of-center.  Or would Democrats have to be "good
>sports" about that as well and sit back and let Bush pay off his right-wing
>supporters by nominating the likes of, say, Michael Luttig (I presume that
>Edith Jones is now disqualified because of the "let sleeping lawyers lie"
>decision tht she joined in last week)?
>
>sandy
>
>sandy levinson
>