Why Bush v. Gore might mean that Clinton should be president: The EP argument against winner-take-al

‏@AndreaChalupa
Here's a thread about #1p1vote and urgent calls to action to protect our democracy
RETWEETS



Andrea Chalupa ‏@AndreaChalupa 8m8 minutes ago
1. Over 2.5 million more Americans and counting voted for @HillaryClinton. Yet 80K people are deciding the election?
1 reply 13 retweets 15 likes

Andrea Chalupa ‏@AndreaChalupa 7m7 minutes ago
2. The Electoral College no longer works as our Founding Fathers intended it to. The EC was created to protect us from a populist demagogue


Andrea Chalupa ‏@AndreaChalupa 7m7 minutes ago
3. To the world & most Americans who voted in this election, it appears America is not a democracy if 80K votes can cancel out 2.5 million

Andrea Chalupa ‏@AndreaChalupa 7m7 minutes ago
4. Luckily, George W. Bush showed us a way to correct this. It's called Equal Protection & was used to elect Bush in 2004 via Gore v. Bush

Andrea Chalupa ‏@AndreaChalupa 6m6 minutes ago
Andrea Chalupa Retweeted Lessig
5. Harvard Law Professor @lessig breaks down the argument for Equal Protection enforcing will of 2.5 million+ votersAndrea Chalupa added,
Lessig @lessig
Why Bush v. Gore might mean that Clinton should be president: The EP argument against winner-take-all: #1p1vote http://ow.ly/lh9l306NcnX

Andrea Chalupa ‏@AndreaChalupa 6m6 minutes ago
6. There's a strong precedent of Equal Protection deciding a presidential election. The GOP had the backbone to use it. We must use it now.

Andrea Chalupa ‏@AndreaChalupa 6m6 minutes ago
7. Call AGs of states whose citizens' voices were heard loud & clear in the popular vote. Tell them to enforce the Equal Protection clause
1 reply 4 retweets 4 likes

Andrea Chalupa ‏@AndreaChalupa 5m5 minutes ago
8. Here are numbers to AGs of states we need to call today to demand they enforce the Equal Protection clause: https://goo.gl/NceH08

Andrea Chalupa ‏@AndreaChalupa 5m5 minutes ago
9. Please RT! Do this Twitter storm 2day: demand AGs protect democracy/popular vote: enforce Equal Protection clause https://goo.gl/0LQxze

Andrea Chalupa ‏@AndreaChalupa 5m5 minutes ago
10. We must fight on as many fronts as we can to stop a populist demagogue from turning our country into a kleptocracy. Rely on yourself now

Andrea Chalupa ‏@AndreaChalupa 4m4 minutes ago
11. In addition to demanding #1p1vote, in these next two weeks continue to take actions for #AuditTheVote: http://purl.org/f4a/auditthevote …
0 replies 5 retweets 4 likes

That's... um... "novel"

The courts have ruled consistently that states have the ability to apportion their electoral votes under their own preferred system. The federal courts will not (can not) overturn a state's selection... nor could they ever do so ex post facto.

Rather easy to make that argument, since the intent of the electoral college was not to outweigh other rights, just to provide a method of election intended to be fair and within the other parameters of the document. That is not the case in this singular exception to history. The impossible has happened. [center]

This is because if the states get to apportion their electoral votes under their own preferred system, then what's to prevent a red state (red governor/legislature/judiciary supermajorities) from doing he following:

1. Use red majority to pass state constitutional amendment requiring a 75% vote of the legislature and 75% of the public vote to pass all future constitutional amendments.

2. Use that currently existing red supermajority to pass a constitutional amendment saying that only a 1/3 vote of the population (rather than a simple majority - i.e., 50% + 1) is sufficient to apportion all of the state's electoral votes.

Under the above scheme, even if one, two or all three branches of that state's government turned blue some day, there would never be enough blue votes in that state to exceed the 2/3's vote required to take the states' electoral votes, and there'd never be enough of a blue supermajority to roll back the constitution to reflect a simple majority requirement.

Before you say anything about how farfetched that is, just think of the conniving that Republicans have done so far. It is totally within their MO to re-engineer basic electoral processes and legal institutions to guarantee red victories under almost any circumstances. I believe Trump's team will be doing this at the federal level to assure unshakable Republican control of all aspects of government, even if a future president and house should become Democratic.

It isn't even internally consistent. They're going to raise the state's constitutional threshold and then meet that threshold?

And, more obviously, if you only need 1/3 to do something... doesn't that imply that almost 2/3 disagrees? They too would meet the 1/3 threshold.

and the Constitution says it is up to each state to decide if it is a winner take all or divide them like Nebraska and Maine. Each state is free to do so. The argument in BvG isn't relevant because it was about the Florida election and conflicts within Florida.
We don't have a unitary system, nor should we. People forget we didn't have one presidential election, we had 51 separate elections, each one under different laws and rules. If your theory worked, it could also be used in some state without early voting to cry foul over some state that does.
Any system would not guarantee the desired result.

Here are numbers to AGs of states we need to call today to demand they enforce the Equal Protection clause: https://goo.gl/NceH08


https://t.co/mP3owWW7fz


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m0SIRLe1nRb0De9GWOBd4q1vRxny-s1DIZey_AqB9dY/edit#gid=0

Winner take all for state electoral votes is NOT in US constitution. Enforce Equal Protection clause:


https://medium.com/lessig/the-equal-protection-argument-against-winner-take-all-in-the-electoral-college-b09e8a49d777#.kyqhlyifa

I WILL contact the AG of NY today, for whatever good it will do.

Start making the phone calls. We need just one state AG to take to supreme court, but the more AG's the better.

https://twitter.com/AkaMotherto3/status/805788309981196288


Attorney General phone numbers:


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m0SIRLe1nRb0De9GWOBd4q1vRxny-s1DIZey_AqB9dY/edit#gid=0

But having read the article I can't completely dismiss it out-of-hand.

Call if you voted in California!

AG PH #s

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m0SIRLe1nRb0De9GWOBd4q1vRxny-s1DIZey_AqB9dY/edit#gid=0

About time to update this graphic. We are approaching Clinton defeating Trump by more votes than Donnie got in total in a dozen states.



Since Nov. 27 the change is dramatic for Clinton votes as CA reports.

Clinton margin Dec 4 = 2,597,156
12 states Trump vote = 2,651,861

Will Clinton's lead gain another 55,000 votes? As of Friday, Riverside County alone had 33,000 provisional ballots to count. The deadline for completing the counts is Tuesday.



Watch Mike Pence try to defend Trump’s false claim that ‘millions’ voted illegally

Thank you for the information.

will have no legitimacy

How could the 4-4 Supreme Court decide this? I do agree with
challenging the EC vote on this, the more roadblocks we can
throw the better, but .... 4x4

Imagine if California shifted away from winner-take-all. Would that increase incentive for red Texas to do the same? Nope.

The Constitution clearly grants states the power to assign electors as they choose. There is no requirement to consult with the people of the state by election or any other means.

In short, the popular election for President is a privilege not a right.

other rights. Especially when the way they (the Sate) decide to elect electors is through an election. Then people have to be treated and protected equally.

...votes in some precincts and not others.

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors" in the Constitution didn't extend to doing recounts in precincts where one candidate wants them.

The twitter subpost you did had an error in tweet 4. bush V. Gore was 2000, it was Kerry v bush in '04.

The rest of your OP and subposts' info and ideas are great. Thanks.

So you are in PA! Nice. My neighbor as I am in NY!

I told them I was a PA state citizen, brought up Prof Lessig's legal opinion piece, and asked our AG office to grant PA citizens some legal relief by filing immediately for a hearing in the Supreme Court. The call ran from 9:41 to 9:55 am, and E informed me that they would not send me a written reply to my request for AG action, unless I wrote them via USPS or e-mail.

I wrote this and sent it, to the e-mail address that E provided. For PA it is Info@attorneygeneral.gov. (No "PA" in our State A.G. site's contact e-mail, I guess they got in on the domain name early. I don't know what the other state's e-mail addresses are, residents should call their A.G. office from Madam's list and find out.)

Here's the letter (I titled it "Citizens Request Your Office take Action in the Supreme Court":


Office of Attorney General
16th Floor, Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120

Attorney General Beemer,

I spoke to your office staff by your 717 787 3391 office phone number today, Tuesday 12/6. H got E to assist my inquiries. E recommended that I get in touch with your office via snail mail or e-mail, if I desired a written response to the concerns I raised with her verbally.

My name is ______ ________, I’m a PA citizen and voter. I called your office regarding the legal opinion piece that Law Professor Lawrence Lessig just wrote, entitled “The Equal Protection argument against “winner take all” in the Electoral College”. Here’s a link to the article:

https://medium.com/@lessig/the-equal-protection-argument-against-winner-take-all-in-the-electoral-college-b09e8a49d777

The argument is simple. The Supreme Court’s Bush v. Gore decision favored the Equal Protection of voters argument put forth by Bush’s counsel. This occurred when the GOP candidate was 500,000 votes behind in the popular vote total.

The Winner Take All rule that 48 states observe to assign their Electors in the Electoral College is not in the Constitution.

It’s perfectly clear that the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, New York or California could walk into the Supreme Court tomorrow, and ask the Court to hear the case. Delaware tried to do this exactly fifty years ago, but the Court ducked the question. Why are these big states standing by quietly as their voters are essentially silenced by the unconstitutional inequality?

I understand E’s statement that the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office is non-partisan, and I agree with that policy. But I can’t help but notice the number of times the Attorneys General in GOP-controlled states went to court against our sitting Dem president, who won 6 to 9 million more votes than their candidates. I also notice that our Dem candidate is more than 2.5 million votes ahead of her opponent in the current popular vote count for this election.

As a citizen whose legal rights you protect, I’m requesting that your Office go to the Supreme Court and file a hearing request, immediately, before the Vote Certification deadline, that protects my Equal Protection rights and challenges the disproportionate assignment of GOP electors to the Electoral College by our state. It would be nice if our state took a prominent position on this, but there are 16 other large population blue state AGs that could also join us.

Please send me a response to my request. If I get an automated reply, I’ll need to call your office again for a different e-mail address, because time is of the essence here.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,

Mike Mc
___ L_____ St.
Pgh., PA 152__

P.S. I pointed out to E that the GOP candidate is not only millions of votes behind, but also seems like someone who’s name must have been mentioned coupled with the word "indictment" 150 times by this State’s AG office, for his involvement with Philadelphia organized crime associates. It seems like an Equal Protection challenge to unconstitutional Elector Apportionment in the Electoral College is the least that can be done, to benefit current and future enforcement of law at the state level.



That's the letter, cross posting to PA with a link to your o.p., for its list of phone #s of blue AGs to contact and request legal relief.

in this system in which winner-take-all has been abolished. For example, Wyoming (one of my least favorite states) went for Trump by 70 to 22 or something like that. They have 3 EV's. So they divide these 3 as 2 for Trump one for Clinton. So what happens if they had been 85% for Trump and 15% for Clinton. Then I guess Clinton would get 0 EVs. But if she got 1 vote over 16.5 % she would get 1 of Wyoming's 3 EVs. In this system also if Trump gets 50.1% to Clinton's 49.9% in WY, (not likely to happen I know, but for the sake of argument) Trump would also get 2 EV's to Clinton's one. At least I think this is the way it would work. That might be okay, because things might balance out in other states.

But in this system, is it still theoretically possible though for the winner of the popular vote to still lose the election? The way rounding would occur makes me think that it still might be possible. If that's the case, then it still seems it would be better than what we have now, but it still would not be as good as a direct election decided just by popular vote.

By the time you factor in gerrymandering. voter supression and the Electoral College throughout the country, we are not even close to equal representation.
I know gerrymandering doesn't have a direct effect on statewide issues, but it does put in members of Congress who may determine the final results of a federal election if it goes to the House of Representatives.
Trump is right…. .THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED… FOR REPUBLICANS!

Without a functioning result verification system, this talk is a distraction from non-democracy.

The Electors Trust provides free and strictly confidential legal support to any Elector who wishes to vote their conscience.

The Electors Trust will defend your right to exercise your “independent and nonpartisan judgment.”
We will defend you against any fines or legal claims that might threaten the freedom of your vote.
If you are an Elector, we will also allow you to know how many others like you there are. How many, not who. Because we will never reveal any Elector’s views, to anyone, ever.

https://medium.com/lessig/the-electors-trust-7af58d87c2bd#.hoblc5vzx

http://www.electorstrust.org/

https://twitter.com/lessig/status/806080440121626625

and that some of the states have laws that bind the electors, there is likely to be at least an elector that faces the possibility of facing charges. And you know the vindictive assholes will bring charges. Some high powered lawyers have pledged to represent any electors who do this Pro Bono.

If this occurs what are the odds that the GOP will declare presidential elector's vote to be commodities to go to the highest bidder?

I feel that there is a high possibility of an electoral college crisis in the making.