Posted on 05/04/2004 10:46:35 PM PDT by neverdem
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
NEW HAVEN
With Ralph Nader bobbing along at 2 percent to 7 percent in the polls, now is the time to consider whether our system is flexible enough to avoid another election in which a candidate loses the popular vote but wins the presidency. The answer is yes — if Mr. Nader chooses to cooperate.
In November, Americans won't be casting their ballots directly for George Bush, John Kerry or Ralph Nader. From a constitutional point of view, they will be voting for competing slates of electors nominated in each state by the contenders. Legally speaking, the decisions made by these 538 members of the Electoral College determine the next president.
In the case of Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry, electors will be named by each state's political parties. But Ralph Nader is running as an independent. When he petitions to get on the ballot in each state, he must name his own slate of electors. While he is free to nominate a distinctive slate of names, he can also propose the very same names that appear on the Kerry slate.
If he does, he will provide voters with a new degree of freedom. On Election Day, they will see a line on the ballot designating Ralph Nader's electors. But if voters choose the Nader line, they won't be wasting their ballot on a candidate with little chance of winning. Since Mr. Nader's slate would be the same as Mr. Kerry's, his voters would be providing additional support for the electors selected by the Democrats. If the Nader-Kerry total is a majority in any state, the victorious electors would be free to vote for Mr. Kerry.
This plan is consistent with the original understanding of the founders. When they created the Electoral College, they did not anticipate the rise of the party system; they expected voters to select community leaders who would make their own judgments when casting their ballots for the presidency. In designating Kerry electors rather than insisting on his own slate, Mr. Nader would be giving new meaning to this tradition that refused to view electors as simply vehicles of a candidate's will. In effect, he would be enabling his supporters to rank their choices: Mr. Nader first, Mr. Kerry second.
Over the centuries, the electors have become creatures of their parties, though they sometimes cast independent votes. Yet the Supreme Court has made only limited concessions to this reality. It has allowed political parties to protect the integrity of their mission by giving electors a place on their party's ticket only if they promise to vote for the candidates nominated at their national conventions.
But the court has never allowed any state to impose sanctions on an elector who later chooses to vote independently. Indeed, its leading decision recognizes that any promise an elector makes to his party may well be legally unenforceable because it would violate "an assumed constitutional freedom of the elector."
Nevertheless, about half of the states have sought to compromise electors' independence by compelling them to vote for the candidate or party that put them on the ballot. As a consequence, officials in these states might be tempted to reject Mr. Nader's effort to name a slate of electors who are not pledged to vote for him in the final count. In response, the Nader campaign would be obliged to go to court to vindicate the independence of the Electoral College as well as its own First Amendment right to select the electors who best fulfill its political purposes. In contrast, it will be easier to carry out the strategy in the many states that have no laws against elector independence.
The choice, then, is Ralph Nader's. If he truly has no desire to be a spoiler in November, he can structure his candidacy to allow his supporters to vote both for him and for Senator Kerry. But he must act now, when he is organizing his campaign to get on the ballot.
Bruce Ackerman, the co-author of "Deliberation Day," is a professor of law and political science at Yale.
The NY Times and other dingbat liberals refuse to hear his message that the Democratic Party no longer speaks for those to the left of the already deranged left.
He is right in his contention that the Democratic Party is not sufficiently anti-capitalistic nor is it sufficiently anti-war.
The Democratic Party is only anti-capitalistic regarding those industries and players in the capitalistic system that don't pay sufficient tribute to the Democratic Party. And they are only anti-war if a Republican is dropping the bombs.
Unlike the NY Times editorial board, and the majority of its readership, Ralph Nader is a true believer.
His beliefs may be retarded, but he's not a hypocrite about them.
For rats, that is a not compatible with their constitution or constituency.
You're absolutely correct. For example, Democrats demonize corporations such as Wal-Mart, a company that consistently donates to Republicans.
Harken back through the Clinton years, not a single Human Rights clown or Bush-hating anti-war kook was protesting when Clinton was dropping bombs needlessly on Kosovo and Iraq.
Suppose in a given state, Bush/Kerry/Nader goes 48/47/5. Even though Kerry/Nader have 52% and they use the same slate of electors, the EV goes into the Bush column since he received the most votes in that state.
The voters don't even know who the electors are. Only the CANDIDATE winning the state in question (or his party) gets the choice of electors.
If he does, he will provide voters with a new degree of freedom.
Only an academic could love this one. Basically he's recommending that Nader cooperate in devising a scam under which no matter which candidate the voter selects, Kerry gets the electoral votes. I can think of a couple of problems with this sweet deal - first, if Nader were willing to do so, why would he run at all? And second, with both candidates selecting the same slate of electors, who the electors actually vote for may not, in the event, be Kerry. How would the Kerry voters like waking up in the morning to a victorious candidate and the other fellow taking office?
And while I'd never want Nader to be President, I have far more respect for him than I ever would for the likes of Kerry, Clinton, and Gore.
Correct. The only way this crackpot theory applies is if the E.V. totals were (for example) Bush 268, Kerry 267, Nader 3. If all electors stayed "faithful", no one would get the required 270 electoral votes to win, and the election would be thrown to the House. However, if Nader's 3 electors crossed over to vote for Kerry, he wins 270-268.
Other than this extremely unlikely scenario, this article is complete rubbish. On the other hand, if it convinces more Kerry "nose-holding" voters to switch to Nader, then maybe it's a blessing in disguise.
"If the Nader-Kerry total is a majority in any state, the victorious electors would be free to vote for Mr. Kerry"
I'm wondering if this was what Kerry and Nader were meeting about. I had no idea they could do this. I wonder if Nader made some kind of deal with Kerry .. and I wonder what Nader's voters would think about his deal with Kerry. Maybe somebody who's good at stiring up trouble could start a rumor to that effect - and see what happens. LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.