The End of the Electoral College?

[Samuel Bagenstos]

Isn't it a little weird to say that one party would have a House
majority in the current partisan-gerrymandered system but nonetheless
feel that it would benefit substantially from eliminating partisan
gerrymandering?

====================================
Samuel R. Bagenstos
Professor of Law
Washington University School of Law
One Brookings Drive
St. Louis, MO  63130
314-935-9097

>>> "Scarberry, Mark" <Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu> 10/15/2004
2:55:41 PM >>>
One problem is that there is no way, short of constitutional amendment,
to
require all states to move to the Maine system. I think the goal should
be
to end the partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts. Congress
has
the power to end it, under Art. I, sec. 4, cl. 1. That very few
congressional districts are unsafe for incumbents is, I think, a much
more
serious flaw in our democracy than the electoral college. 

 

For partisan gerrymandering to be ended, one party would probably need
to
believe it would benefit substantially, and that party would probably
need
to have a House majority and the ability to cut off debate in the
Senate
with little help from the other party's senators. 

 

Mark S. Scarberry

Pepperdine University School of Law

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Mulshine [mailto:pmulshine at starledger.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 12:37 PM
To: Sanford Levinson; Conkle, Daniel O.; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
Subject: Re: The End of the Electoral College?

 

I would like to note that as an alternative we should consider the
syetm
used by Maine, awarding electors by congressional district. Here in
Jersey
we have the same problem as Texas; we tend to be ignored (though we
are
theoretically in play this year). A district system would assure
attention.
Also, it might tend to cause politicians to push for more competitive
districts. And unlike abolition of the college, this is feasible.

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Sanford <mailto:SLevinson at law.utexas.edu>  Levinson 

To: Paul <mailto:pmulshine at starledger.com>  Mulshine ; Conkle,
<mailto:conkle at indiana.edu>  Daniel O. ; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
<mailto:conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu>  

Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 3:22 PM

Subject: RE: The End of the Electoral College?

 

 

 

 

As a mere journalist, a columnist at the Star-Ledger of New Jersey who
wrote
what is I believe the first news account of that Colorado initiative
and its
potential impact, may I ask a simple question: Is this entire debate
not
irrelevant? I can see no possible scenario under which the small
states
would approve and amendment that would take away the disproportionate
power
they have under the current system. Can anyone see such a scenario?

Paul Mulshine

The Star-Ledger

 Isn't the correct answer that this entire debate IS, alas, irrelevant,
for
precisely the reasons that Paul Mulshine suggests.  Isn't this sad
conclusion just another illustration of the stupidity (perhaps
"perniciousness" is the more appropriate word) of Article V?

 

One of the worst features of the Electoral College, incidentally, is
that it
means that the candidates give no cogent speeches at all about issues
that
might matter to anyone in the non-battleground states.  We in Texas
might as
well be living in France for all the attention that either candidate
is
paying to "our" concerns.  I have no desire to have the voters of Ohio
and
Minnesota "virtually represent" me.  This is an idiotic system that no
sane
country would adopt today (including, I would hope, our own, were we
writing
on a clean slate).

 

sandy 






CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain information that is
privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you
are
not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify the sender
immediately by return e-mail, purge it and do not disseminate or copy
it.