At 10:32 AM 5/5/2006, Steve Eppley wrote: >And then, of course, there's the question of whether 5 Supreme Court >justices would >interpret it when ruling on this scheme.
Supreme Law of the Land would appear to be the Supreme Court. There is a higher court, but those who sit on it are fast asleep. 2000 showed that. Consider the Ukraine. Possible election fraud, the people were in the streets and the government fell. However, maybe the higher court is not *entirely* asleep and some are dreaming, with some connection to reality.... >I posted a similar scheme here several years ago, one which would >have an effect much >sooner, not waiting until states containing a majority of the >Electoral College agreed. >Suppose a state passed a law that would require it to include in its >count of voters' >votes for President the votes of all voters in all states that >passed the same law? It >could grow like a crystal, similarly to the way that the bloc of >primary elections on >Super Tuesday grew: The states that join in might receive increased >attention from the >Presidential candidates due to their combined weight. The more >states that joined, the >greater would be the incentive for the remaining states to join. Actually, my own proposal, which I think also appeared here, required the state to act, in the interim condition before it was more widely adopted, to award all electors as necessary to balance out the college toward the popular vote (or, more accurately, to an overall assignment of electors according to what it would be if the college were elected by proportional representation -- possibly including the small state edge, possibly not). This would more quickly bring the College to proportionality, and would be more flexible than the movement that is actually hitting legislatures, which leaves the College as a rubber-stamp. Remember, a majority on the electoral college is required, not a plurality. Get some third-party electors in there and 2000 might have looked very different. Doesn't have to be many. We have no process, though, for broadly debating reforms like these. What happens, essentially, is that somebody with money gets fired up and starts a PAC, which follows the ideas of the funder. That's fine, as far as it goes, but we need a broader process that isn't about money. Ahem. >Imagine that California adopted this law, by passing a citizens' >initiative. California >at the moment is "safe" for mainstream Democrat candidates. Small >"unsafe" states having >Democratic-controlled legislatures would then have an incentive to >join with California. My point has been that there are conditions where the reform is possible, if it is designed so that it can be implemented state-by-state. This is actually using the system that created the inequity in the first place, against it. Eleven states, simple majorities in each. That is a lot less than what I've heard for years would be necessary! The devil is in the details. I haven't read the exact legislation yet. What I've heard about it makes it into an even more effective shut-out of third parties. Does this mean I'd oppose it? Probably not. There is another way that third parties can become powerful, mostly by not being so stupid to as actually field candidates unless the time is ripe. Smaller parties can be far more effective as PACs that are about money *and* votes *and volunteers. What if a Green party in a state offered to work for the election of, say, a Democratic candidate, providing funds and people and votes. In exchange for access and influence over the selection of candidates -- not control, just influence -- and platforms. Some parties in some states essentially run one of the major candidates as theirs. This gives them ballot position, but their votes don't spoil the results. That one may take legislation allowing more than one party to list the same candidate. Simple. Initiatives like this expose who is actually in favor of democracy and who is not.... FA/DP is, in my view, the way to do it, to organize these movements and make them effective. Outside of government, no changes in law required. http://metaparty.beyondpolitics.org ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
