A somewhat ranting question

[Richard D. Friedman]

Oops!  Thank you, Paul.  I had forgotten.  My basic point is still the same 
-- even if there is illegitimate activity that alters the result in a close 
contest, it does not make the resulting government illegitimate.  I do 
agree with Mark Graber's point that the effect of these jolts is 
cumulative.  But even if the system is somewhat weighted to one side 
systematically, it doesn't render the government illegitimate.  I assume 
there's been some weighting against poorer people who, for various reasons, 
find it more difficult to vote than do more affluent people.

Rich


At 04:27 PM 10/26/2004, Paul Finkelman wrote:
>The fact is that if Nixon carried Illinois in 1960 JFK would have won; The 
>idea that the Democrats stole the election is just a Republican Big Lie 
>that has been repeated so many times that most people believe it. The 
>outcome was 303 electoral votes for Kennedy; 219 for Nixon; Illinois had 
>27; move those 27 to Nixon and the outcome is
>276 - JFK
>246 - Nixon
>
>Whether Mayor Dailey stole more votes in Chicago than the Republicans did 
>downstate is another question
>--
>Paul Finkelman
>Chapman Distinguished Professor
>University of Tulsa College of Law
>3120 East 4th Place
>Tulsa, Oklahoma  74104-2499
>
>918-631-3706 (office)
>918-631-2194 (fax)
>
>paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu
>
>
>Richard D. Friedman wrote:
>>I think the only way Sandy's first assumption could plausibly be true 
>>would be if, as measured "properly", whatever that means, the election 
>>was really, really close, as it was in 2000.  And we learned in 2000 that 
>>our measurement devices for really, really close elections aren't 
>>perfect, and also, I believe, that in such a case factors that ought not 
>>enter in, like the political preferences of the people who happen to be 
>>on the Supreme Court, might nevertheless prove decisive.  But it doesn't 
>>mean that the government is illegitimate; had Al Gore gotten a few 
>>thousand more votes in Florida, he would have been President without 
>>question. Similarly, in 1960, maybe Democrats in Illinois did bad things 
>>that threw the election to Kennedy.  If so, it's a terrible shame and it 
>>shouldn't have happened.  But it's not as if Nixon or Gore won 60% of the 
>>vote in the decisive state and was yet denied the Presidency -- then 
>>there would be real question of legitimacy.
>>Rich Friedman
>>At 03:10 PM 10/26/2004, Sanford Levinson wrote:
>>
>>>  a) Assume that George Bush is "re-elected" in the Electoral College
>>>(having lost to John Kerry in the popular vote) because of one or
>>>another judicial decision, by a Republican-dominated Court, in a split
>>>vote, deciding a highly contested issue his way.  B) Assume further that
>>>the House remains Republican only because of the Tom DeLay gerrymander
>>>that, one can surmise, five justices of the US Supreme Court believe is
>>>probably unconstitutional.  (I see no other explanation for returning
>>>the case to the original district court, given that it would have been
>>>altogether easy to say that it was covered by Veith and the five votes
>>>that held that it was either nonjusticiable (4) or that no judicially
>>>manageable standards had yet been discovered to apply to the situation
>>>(Kennedy).)  (We can assume, for sake of the question, that the Court
>>>ultimately does rule the DeLay gerrymander unconstitutional, sometime in
>>>2006.) c) Assume further that the Senate is 50-50, with Dick Cheney,
>>>returned to the Presidency of the Senate because of "a" above.  So the
>>>question, which is entirely serious, is why should any Democrat, under
>>>these circumstances, view the United States as having a legitimate
>>>government?  If you wish you can reverse the polarities and assume a
>>>similar Kerry "election," and the Democrats taking the House only
>>>because of a Democratic gerrymander (though I'm not aware that any of
>>>the current gerrymanders even begin to compare with  DeLay's rape of
>>>representative government in Texas).
>>>
>>>If any of you you think this question does not relate to "constitutional
>>>law," please let me know why.
>>>
>>>sandy
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>>>
>>>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>>>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>>>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly 
>>>or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>_______________________________________________
>>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly 
>>or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>
>
>