Ad in today's NY Times

[Frank Cross]

Richard Dougherty makes a good point but it raises an amazing irony.
The Gore campaign appeared singlemindedly focused on the electoral vote,
ignoring California and New York.  The Bush campaign obviously was paying
attention to the electoral vote but also seemed attuned to the popular vote
(campaigning considerably in California).  So what happens -- the result is
the opposite of expected.  Kind of makes you wonder about campaigning.



At 05:28 PM 11/10/2000 -0600, you wrote:
> I haven't seen the ad, but ought we to be talking about the popular vote
>at all (except as a way of ascertaining the electoral vote)? Surely if the
>candidates had run their campaign with the idea that they had to win the
>popular vote we would have had an entirely different campaign. No? For
>instance, perhaps VP Gore would have campaigned here in Texas? Perhaps Bush
>would have spent considerably more time in California and New York? In
>other words, is the popular vote a relevant factor for this election? If we
>want to make it so in the next election, let's go to a popular vote, but
>until we do...
>Frank Cross does make a good point abut the independence of the electors,
>but it seems to me that the electors should also bear in mind the nature of
>the campaign.
>Richard Dougherty  DAVID E. BERNSTEIN wrote:     Can someone who has seen
>the ad come up with an explanation as how this ad makes sense?  David E.
>Bernstein
>Associate Professor
>George Mason University
>School of Law
>3401 N. Fairfax Drive
>Arlington, VA 22201
>(703) 993-8089
>dbernste at wpgate.gmu.edu
><http://members.aol.com/deliotb/home.html>
>
Frank Cross
Herbert D. Kelleher Centennial Professor of Business Law
CBA 5.202
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712