Why not a tie-breaking mechanism?

[Griesel, Curtis W.]

I still think a single run-off would be better than a transferable ballot.
It would force the two most viable candidates to go head-to-head nation
wide, practically removing the likelihood of a tie happening twice.  With
transferable ballots, you still have the possibility of people trading one
minor candidate for another.

If there were a statistical tie after the first ballot, factions that were
divided by third-party candidates would have to align behind one of the
surviving candidates, removing the likelihood of a tie in the run-off.

Of course, I am skipping the whole electoral college in this proposal, but I
doubt very many citizens would be upset by that!  In the worst case, you
would have two elections.  The likelihood of a tie happening twice is almost
non-existent.  The only case where recounts would be needed is in cases of
egregious errors, which I don't think have been demonstrated to have
happened in Florida.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sanford Levinson [mailto:SLevinson at MAIL.LAW.UTEXAS.EDU]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 1:44 PM
To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Why not a tie-breaking mechanism?


Even better than a tie-breaking mechanism would be the adoption of the
single transferrable ballot, which creates "instant runoffs."  If, at the
end, there's still a "tie," then why not just flip a coin?

I thought at the time and still believe that President Clinton behaved
disgracefully toward Lani Guinier, *not* in withdrawing her nomination,
which was certainly his prerogative, but in knifing her as he did so by
suggesting that her views were, indeed, "unAmerican" and "antidemocratic."
What she was trying to do was to generate a serious conversation about our
electoral system(s), but her hysterical opponents, ultimately joined by the
president, made that conversation impossible.

sandy