'2 for 1' voting....could it work?
California Dreamer:
The following was in todays NYT oped. It proposes a way Nader can remain on the ballot, but have his votes added to Kerry's for the Electoral College, but doesnt involve instant runoff.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
this seems like an interesting idea...could it really work?
I think Nader is searching for a way to remain in the race, but avoid being a spoiler. However I cant see him doing this.
Fritz:
Hyopthetically, even if Nader did do this, I don't think it would work the way the article writer suggests.
Lets suppose a state ends up with:
Bush 48%
Kerry 47%
Nader 3%
Other 2%
In this situation, I think Bush ends up being the winner, even if Kerry and Nader had the same slate of electors and their combined total ends up winning. Kerry and Nader were on the ballot seperately, so their votes must be tallied as seperate from each other.
I see a court case looming if Dems tried to say the Kerry slate of electors won, in this hypothetical.
classical liberal:
If you go by the original Constitutional method of EC voting, the plan is correct. However, the Justice Scalia would have to decide whether he wanted to support his stated support of strict-constructionism or his political leanings towards favoring his friend and his other friend's son. From a strict constructionist viewpoint, the electors are the people who are elected during the Presidential election by the people so the votes for those electors should count towards them regardless of a party. Just as some senatorial candidates have received votes from L, C, Ref, and Independent party sections of the ballot.
angus:
Quote from: RightWingNut on May 05, 2004, 12:29:32 PM
If you go by the original Constitutional method of EC voting, the plan is correct. However, the Justice Scalia would have to decide whether he wanted to support his stated support of strict-constructionism or his political leanings towards favoring his friend and his other friend's son. From a strict constructionist viewpoint, the electors are the people who are elected during the Presidential election by the people so the votes for those electors should count towards them regardless of a party. Just as some senatorial candidates have received votes from L, C, Ref, and Independent party sections of the ballot.
but constructionism doesn't allow for one to pick and choose his favorite version of constitutional law. It requires that a jurist look at the latest version of the document, amendments and warts and all. Clearly this violates the current version. And right now our highest law does not allow for the Nader plan. Of course you and CaliforniaDreamer are welcome to help Ralph get the ball rolling on just such an amendment if it's important to you. The instructions on changing its content were clearly spelled out by the framers, right?
classical liberal:
There hasn't been an amendment that changes the election of electors. States have instituted popular vote for a candidate to choose electors. The state legislatures do still choose electors, only their chosing method has been corrupted by 200 years of political parties.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page