A somewhat ranting question

[RJLipkin at aol.com]

In a message dated 10/26/2004 9:18:58 PM Eastern Standard Time,  
rdfrdman at umich.edu writes:

But if  our system gets the "right" answer about 99.9% of the time when the 
"real"  vote is 50.1%-49.9% or more decisive, and about 70% of the time when 
it's  closer, we're not doing so badly.


It's unclear to me how an  election system that gets the right result 70% of 
the time in close cases  can support a claim that "we're not doing so badly." 
To be sure, there's a  significant difference between a system doing badly or 
making mistakes and these  mistakes delegitimizing the system. But 30% wrong, 
in close elections, if  that's what Rich is hypothesizing, is alarming, It 
suggests a  significant, perhaps systemic, problem that (1) needs to be 
identified, (2)  explained fully, and (3) quickly remedied, if not all at once at least 
over the  course of the next few years.  
 
        Further,  although perfection cannot be a necessary condition of 
either  legitimacy or not doing badly, rhetoric that suggests (I  do not say 
states or implies) that we're settling for imperfection, is  unhelpful.  Rather, a 
much more useful rule--contributing to improving the  system--is to embrace 
the paradox of recognizing the impossibility of  perfection, while never ceasing 
aggressive attempts to attain it, and  that means, in my view, never accept a 
conclusion that, in the relevant  circumstances, we are not doing so badly.
 
Bobby
 
Robert Justin  Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of  Law
Delaware

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20041027/fc8dfe0f/attachment.htm