question about electoral college in the USA
In a recent counterpunch article Dave Lindorff suggested that Sanders
should go ahead and run on the Green ticket, but with the following
agreement: if Trump gets more electoral votes than either Clinton or
Sanders, then (of these two) the one with lesser support should withdraw
from the race and direct his electors (in the electoral college) to vote
for the other.
It seems reasonable, but I wonder if the rules really do allow that.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: [EM] question about electoral college in the USA
From: "Forest Simmons" fsimmons@pcc.edu
Date: Tue, June 21, 2016 9:18 pm
To: "EM" election-methods@lists.electorama.com
In a recent counterpunch article Dave Lindorff suggested that Sanders
should go ahead and run on the Green ticket, but with the following
agreement: if Trump gets more electoral votes than either Clinton or
Sanders, then (of these two) the one with lesser support should withdraw
from the race and direct his electors (in the electoral college) to vote
for the other.
It seems reasonable, but I wonder if the rules really do allow that.
there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution nor federal law that prevents duly-elected electors from voting for whomever they want to vote for on January 6th. �since the electors are chosen according to state law, i think that some of the states might have law proscribing electors from
voting for anyone other than their pledge, but i dunno what the consequences would be if they didn't. �i sorta don't think that a state can stop an elector from voting for whom they want, but they could punish or sanction them somehow if it isn't whom they were pledged to vote. �i know
once in a while you might see one or two goofy votes in the tally of 538.
these folks are called "faithless electors", i think.
BTW, Bernie has made it clear that he is not running for prez as anything other than the Dem nominee. �to the chagrin and disbelief of some of
the Bernie or Bust crowd. �i am definitely a Bernie supporter and want him to go all the way to the convention with his delegates, but i am awful scared of Cap'n Combover being promoted to President. �and we have something like FPTP, so i recognize that my vote for any candidate other than
the runner up actually helps the winner.
--
r b-j � � � � � � � � � � �rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
How does a POTUS vote in MA or VT for anyone but the runner-up help the
winner? Voting to bring up a 3rd-party's numbers seems to me to be the only
substantive vote you could actually make.
On Wednesday, June 22, 2016, robert bristow-johnson <
rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: [EM] question about electoral college in the USA
From: "Forest Simmons" <fsimmons@pcc.edu
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','fsimmons@pcc.edu');>
Date: Tue, June 21, 2016 9:18 pm
To: "EM" <election-methods@lists.electorama.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','election-methods@lists.electorama.com');>
In a recent counterpunch article Dave Lindorff suggested that Sanders
should go ahead and run on the Green ticket, but with the following
agreement: if Trump gets more electoral votes than either Clinton or
Sanders, then (of these two) the one with lesser support should withdraw
from the race and direct his electors (in the electoral college) to vote
for the other.
It seems reasonable, but I wonder if the rules really do allow that.
there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution nor federal law that prevents
duly-elected electors from voting for whomever they want to vote for on
January 6th. since the electors are chosen according to state law, i think
that some of the states might have law proscribing electors from voting for
anyone other than their pledge, but i dunno what the consequences would be
if they didn't. i sorta don't think that a state can stop an elector from
voting for whom they want, but they could punish or sanction them somehow
if it isn't whom they were pledged to vote. i know once in a while you
might see one or two goofy votes in the tally of 538.
these folks are called "faithless electors", i think.
BTW, Bernie has made it clear that he is not running for prez as anything
other than the Dem nominee. to the chagrin and disbelief of some of the
Bernie or Bust crowd. i am definitely a Bernie supporter and want him to
go all the way to the convention with his delegates, but i am awful scared
of Cap'n Combover being promoted to President. and we have something like
FPTP, so i recognize that my vote for any candidate other than the runner
up actually helps the winner.
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','rbj@audioimagination.com');
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [EM] question about electoral college in the USA
From: "Alex Fink" alexmfink@gmail.com
Date: Wed, June 22, 2016 9:05 am
To: "rbj@audioimagination.com" rbj@audioimagination.com
Cc: "EM" election-methods@lists.electorama.com
How does a POTUS vote in MA or VT for anyone but the runner-up help the
winner?
MA and VT are safe blue states. �that is true. �and AZ and LA are safe red states. �so it's likely that voting tactically (the tactic is called "compromising") in those states does not help and you may as well vote for whom you like best. �but suppose
you're in OH or PA or VA or FL?
admittedly the statement is a sorta meme or half-truth: "with FPTP all votes for any candidate other than the runner up are votes for the winner."
the status-quo is that the lead candidate is winning. �not closing the gap on the leader does
nothing to change that status-quo.
i guess the assumption is that the 2nd runner-up is not close enough to overtake the runner-up. �and, to the winner, the gap to the 2nd runner-up is irrelevant in FPTP.
�
Voting to bring up a 3rd-party's numbers seems to me to be
the only
substantive vote you could actually make.
well, if the 3rd-party candidate is the runner-up or leader, yes. �otherwise, in FPTP, your vote for the 3rd-party serves only to "send a message", which i believe is also a legitimate function of the election process.
when i
was having these arguments with the anti-IRV crowd in Burlington in 2009 and 2010 (when we repealed IRV and returned to FPTP for the mayoral election), i was also trying to persuade people that, besides the primary function of choosing a candidate for elected office, we, the electorate, are sending
a message to those in government (if the winner just barely wins, that is no mandate).
and FPTP increases the price voters pay sometimes to "send a message", that price is "wasting" their vote. �this supports Duverger's Law - voters are punished for sending that
message (bringing up the 3rd-party's numbers) when the candidate that these voters hate the most is elected, and sometimes just barely. �of course the Bush/Gore/Nader thing in Florida in 2000 is a good example. �i have seen bumper stickers defiantly proclaiming "Voted Nader, No
Regrets" and i have personally seen someone X out the "No" on their bumper sticker after the invasion of Iraq was beginning to look like a fiasco.
i think the best way we can both "send a message" yet be protected from acting contrary to our political interests is to
have the Ranked-Choice ballot. �but, as we've discussed here many times (and as Burlington VT voters found out in 2009), IRV is a crappy way to tabulate the ranked ballot for many reason. �And Burlington 2009 was a classic example for why IRV is crappy.
i'm voting in Vermont so i
might very well write Bernie in. �but i wouldn't do that if lived and voted in Ohio. �being an Inspector of Election (in Bernie's ward in Burlington, no less), it will be both interesting and a pain in the ass to see how many of these write-ins we get.
(hey Alex, let's do lunch or
something again.)
L8r,
--
r b-j � � � � � � � � � � �rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."