response 9 of 57:

Dec 15 05:08 UTC 2000

Who can attend the electors meeting?  Where will it be held?

response 11 of 57:

Dec 15 05:24 UTC 2000

So I need to contact Mr. Hansen tomorrow.  :)

And I thought you had missed 3, so I tried again. ;)

response 13 of 57:

Dec 15 12:49 UTC 2000

Re 12.  Okay, in retrospect, my comments about black Republicans were a
bit too glib, and I apologize for painting with too broad of a brush.  I
was speaking, as the context ought to make clear, only of Republican party
operatives in urban congressional districts which don't really have more
than a tiny number of actual Republican voters.

American history offers many examples of times and places where people
became activists in political parties which didn't really exist as
electoral forces in their areas.  A white Mississippi Republican in 1925,
or a Vermont Democrat in 1935, for example, when those states were utterly
and completely dominated by the other party, was probably interested in
being appointed postmaster or a similar job by the party in the White
House.  A political party in those circumstances is characterized by
having many activists who are more interested in receiving political
appointments than in actually participating in electoral politics.  Not
all of them, mind you, but an unusual number.  A fair way to label that
kind of political involvement is opportunism. 

Perhaps somewhat unlike 1925 or 1935, the political parties today are
relatively homogenous nationally, and defined increasingly by ideology
rather than by ancestry, ethnicity and tradition.  For various reasons,
black Americans as a group are an exception to this.

Yes, there are certainly growing numbers of principled, conservative black
Republicans, who join and get involved in the GOP because of their values. 
Alan Keyes is but one example of this, and I didn't mean to cast
aspersions on him or anyone even somewhat like him.

Howver, in many years of direct experience in the political world, it is
NOT my observation that Republican Party organizations in places like the
two congressional districts in Detroit are mostly or even significantly
composed of ideological conservatives.  Rather, African-American
Republican operatives from those areas tend to stress that they are NOT
ideological conservatives, even though they may be loyal to the more
conservative party.

You ask why why skin color makes a person's neighbors "more accepting of
what amounts to political treason," but I'm sure you know that among black
Americans as a group, the widely accepted definition of "political
treason" would be to join the Republicans.  The worst epithets about black
Republicans I have heard all come from black Democrats: "traitors to the
race," "snakes", etc.  "Opportunist" is mild compared to these.

If someone lives in a nearly-all-black congressional district, it stands
to reason that most of his or her neighbors will also be black and most of
them will be Democrats.  If anything, the word "most" understates the
case.  If a Republican in their midst abandons the Republican Party in
such a spectacular way, realistically, they are not going to be facing
angry demonstrations at their doorstep.  Indeed, it's not hard to imagine
the nation's most visible black leader, Jesse Jackson, thanking them.

As to whether or not a faithless elector is doing something stupid, well,
not everyone would see it that way.  I agree that a Bush-to-Gore flip
under the current circumstances would be an INCREDIBLY self-destructive
act for the average Republican elector, and I point out the reasons for
that in detail.  However, those consequences are not equally distributed,
and that was the point I was trying to make.

You're right that I could have left skin color out of it and referred
simply to a Bush elector in an overwhelmingly Democratiic area, and maybe
I should have.  However, the only areas which are overwhelmingly enough
Democratic for this to be even slightly plausible are, in point of fact,
areas populated overwhelmingly by African-American voters.  Leaving out
that fact completely would have been misleading. 

Yes, of course I focused on scenarios that might motivate an elector to
vote for Gore instead of Bush, because Bush received the majority of the
electoral votes, albeit by a slim margin, and the only reason to worry
about electors is the possibility that one or more Bush electors may not
perform as expected.  (I do address the likelihood that Gore electors
could also "flip".  That is less interesting now, but it would have been
crucial if the votes been the other way around.)

Moreover, if you asked any political scientist before November 7, 2000,
you would have heard that an outcome where the electoral college produces
a different result than the popular vote would put pressure on electors
to flip and support the popular vote winner.

It is only Bush's loss in the popular vote that makes this discussion even
vaguely plausible.  A "flipped" elector, who under ordinary circumstances
might be universally seen as a contemptible turncoat, would potentially be
praised (in SOME quarters) as a hero to democracy.

Speaking as a Gore supporter, I'm not saying or advocating that Gore
winning the electoral college on faithless electors would be a good thing.
Certainly -- as I pointed out! -- it would not be a good thing for him.

And indeed, it occurs to me that he has a safety valve if, by early Monday
evening, it looks like he has benefited from a net of three flips.  Hawaii
will be the last state to vote, and it has four Gore electors.  Assuming
that Hawaii does not have a Michigan-style vote-wrong-and-you're-out law,
Gore could call up the Hawaii electors directly and plead with them to
vote for Bush-Cheney.  Indeed, I expect that if this came to pass, he
would. 

And you may have missed my conclusion, where I predict that any
Bush-to-Gore flips will be outbalanced by flips in the opposite direction. 
Indeed, since any "flips" would be instant national news, Gore electors in
the Mountain and Pacific time zones might well be motivated to vote for
Bush completely on their own, to prevent disruption in the transition
already under way.

response 15 of 57:

Dec 15 15:06 UTC 2000

Re 14.  I really don't know about the 2000 electors, since I haven't
collected information about them yet.  My comments about what electors are
like are based on my knowledge about electors in past years, especially in
Michigan from 1940 to 1996.  There were no faithless electors in Michigan
during that period, but there was at least one (Zolton Ferency in 1968)
who resigned because he couldn't bring himself to vote as pledged.

I have been thinking more about your comments and will have more to say
about these topics when I have a moment.

I appreciate your thoughtful and not overly confrontational responses.

response 17 of 57:

Dec 15 15:27 UTC 2000

Yeah.  If the Supreme Court decision had been presented as fiction, two
months ago, I would have hooted over such patently absurd paranoia.

response 19 of 57:

Dec 15 17:07 UTC 2000

and it would only take, wha? three electors to change their minds to to
flip the election?  might there be three electors from gore's homestate
who regret that Gore won the popular vote and didnt get the win, who would
change their votes on principal?

response 21 of 57:

Dec 15 17:12 UTC 2000

(And, yeah, Jan is right to question my prediction of as many as seven
flips.  I'm guessing now more in the range of zero to one.)

response 23 of 57:

Dec 15 18:25 UTC 2000

My vague recollection is that one of the DC electors announced a plan to 
abstain, in protest against DC's lack of voting representation in 
Congress.

response 25 of 57:

Dec 15 20:04 UTC 2000

Another article, this from the conservative Washington Times:


   Three 'faithless electors' could still give election to Gore

     By Frank J. Murray
     THE WASHINGTON TIMES


   A month-long crusade to persuade three of Texas Gov. George
   W. Bush's 271 hard-won electors to switch sides still could
   make Vice President Al Gore president.

   In his concession speech Wednesday, Mr. Gore assured
   Americans that the Electoral College would ratify Mr. Bush
   as president-elect when electors meet Monday in 50 state
   capitals and in the District of Columbia.

   But there is nothing in the law or Constitution that can
   prevent "faithless electors" from deserting their candidate.
   That has sparked speculation since November, when a veteran
   Democratic operative said that he was "trying to kidnap"
   Bush electors who might be willing to switch to Mr. Gore.

   And in the five weeks since Election Day, tens of thousands
   of e-mails, letters and phone calls bombarded 172 Bush
   electors as a result of an Internet campaign engineered by
   two California college students, who say the popular vote
   should prevail over the Electoral College.

   "I think this is exactly the kind of situation where the
   Founders, who originated the Electoral College, might want
   unbound electors to exercise discretion," said Beverly Ross,
   of Coral Gables, Fla., co-author of an Electoral College
   study cited twice in Tuesday's Supreme Court decision in the
   case of Bush vs. Gore.

   There is precedent for mass defection as recently as 1960,
   when six Alabama electors who signed pledges to Sen. John F.
   Kennedy voted for Sen. Harry Byrd, Virginia Democrat, under
   a segregationist plan hatched by a Montgomery, Ala., lawyer
   who also persuaded Oklahoma elector Dr. Henry D. Irwin to
   switch from Richard Nixon to Mr. Byrd.

   Other electors made their political statement one at a time,
   but none ever changed an election outcome. No electors
   switched sides in 1876, when Rutherford B. Hayes won by one
   vote in the Electoral College.

   Mr. Gore would have to get votes from three "faithless
   electors" to achieve the 270 electoral votes needed to
   become president. Gaining those three electors is the goal
   of an organized effort to convince Bush electors that Mr.
   Gore's 337,576 popular-vote plurality trumps the
   Constitution's system for choosing presidents.

   Two switchers would only tie the vote 269-269 and throw the
   election into the House, where a Republican majority is
   likely.

   There are 140 Bush electors totally unbound either by state
   law or signed pledge _ including 11 in Mr. Gore's home state
   of Tennessee, where the electoral vote is by secret ballot.
   The remaining 131 _ including 59 in other states using
   secret ballots _ know that no "faithless elector" has ever
   been prosecuted for switching sides.

   In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that political
   parties could require electors to sign a pledge to vote for
   their party's nominee for president. Six states and the
   District have such a pledge, enforceable by party
   discipline.

   Twenty states have statutes binding delegates to vote for
   the candidate they were elected to vote for. New Mexico,
   Oklahoma and South Carolina prescribe criminal penalties and
   three others _ North and South Carolina and Michigan
   _nullify "faithless" votes and replace the elector on the
   spot.

   When published reports identified four Bush electors as
   potential converts, those four were bombarded with calls,
   pro and con, more heavily than the overall group. "I am
   casting my vote for George W. Bush," said Frances Sadler, of
   Ashland, Va., contradicting those reports.

   "No way would I switch," said Joe Arpaio, of Scottsdale,
   Ariz., the sheriff of Maricopa County, who gained fame for
   housing 1,400 of his 7,300 jail inmates in a tent city,
   forcing female convicts to work on chain gangs, and muting
   macho males by clothing them in stripes and underwear dyed
   pink.

   "I guess you have First Amendment rights, but if they come
   down here and violate any law, try to bribe me or anybody
   else, they're going to be in Tent City wearing pink
   underwear," Sheriff Arpaio told The Washington Times.

   The other two electors targeted in a Wall Street Journal
   report _Wayne McDonald, of Derry, N.H., and Mamon Wright, of
   Memphis, Tenn. _ were not answering phones or taking
   messages.

   While the recount still was at an impasse, the vice
   president's campaign actively studied ways to recruit enough
   electors to win, even as it publicly repudiated free-lance
   efforts to "kidnap" a few votes, The Times learned from an
   authority on the Electoral College who was advising the Gore
   organization.

   "Gore is three electors away from a victory, two away from a
   tie. Some might defect," he said, refusing to respond when
   asked if any recruits were on board.

   His statements seemed to contradict public disavowals by
   Gore strategists, including former Secretary of State Warren
   G. Christopher.

   "The vice president has said he never would engage in that
   kind of activity and I'm sure he wouldn't. I believe he
   would discourage it," Mr. Christopher said.

   "No matter what happens in Florida, switching electors will
   still be an open question. . . . Gore and Christopher can't
   control that," said former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, a
   Democrat.

   "I take Secretary Christopher at his word. Mario is
   dreaming," countered John Sununu, former Republican governor
   of New Hampshire and President Bush's first chief of staff.
   "Republican electors aren't leaning one iota toward changing
   their commitment."

   That was the view from Bush headquarters in Austin after
   supportive conference calls urging Republican electors to
   stay true, according to campaign spokesman Ray Sullivan.

   "It's certainly unusual for one side to contact the others.
   We were disappointed with the Democrats' efforts to
   investigate Republican electors and try to pressure them
   into switching," Mr. Sullivan said.

   "We expect our electors to support Governor Bush," he said.

   The Gore campaign consultant, who asked not to be
   identified, also said the now-defeated Florida slate of
   Democratic electors still could meet Monday and mail their
   vote to Washington without certification. If that happened,
   according to a National Archives official, the competing
   slate also would be placed before the Joint Session of
   Congress on Jan. 6.

   The Times learned yesterday that Florida Democrats had a
   contingency plan to do precisely that. Until Mr. Gore's
   concession speech, the plan was so solid the Democratic
   Party reserved a meeting room in the state Capitol.

   "We had to be prepared," Tony Welch, Florida Democratic
   Party communications director, said in an interview when
   asked if that prospect had been floated.

   "More than raised and studied _if there was no concession
   and the Florida Legislature had done what we think is
   illegal and Gore had won the vote based on a recount, we
   were ready with our electors meeting," Mr. Welch said.

   "My understanding is that, as of this very moment, our
   electors are not going to meet," Mr. Welch added, saying
   that reflected the policy of Florida Democratic Chairman Bob
   Poe.

   Susan Cooper, spokeswoman for the National Archives, which
   administers Electoral College affairs, confirmed such a ploy
   would put a conflicting slate's claim before Congress, as
   occurred in 1960, when Hawaii sent three claims for their
   three electoral votes, two of them certified by succeeding
   governors of opposite parties.

   "What we did in that case and what we would do again, if the
   situation comes up, is let Congress decide. We would send
   forward any certificates we received," Miss Cooper said.

   Dozens of Bush electors contacted by The Times uniformly
   reported barrages of phone calls, e-mails and letters. About
   one-third were from Democrats urging them to switch sides,
   and most of the rest asked them to stick to their guns, they
   said.

   "No one has been so indecorous as to be threatening or to
   say they'd open a seven-figure bank account for me in the
   Caymans, but a lot of callers seemed to come from the
   shallow end of the gene pool," said West Virginia elector
   John McCutcheon, executive director of the Bush campaign in
   that state.

   Much of that uprising was the Internet-based brainchild of
   government majors David Enrich, 21, of Boston, and Matt
   Grossmann, 21, of Columbia, Mo., at Claremont-McKenna
   College in California.

   Their project began two years ago under the name Citizens
   for True Democracy to abolish the Electoral College system.
   It transformed on Dec. 10 into Vote With America, whose Web
   site (www.votewithamerica.com) sparked the outpouring of e-
   mail to 172 Bush electors, whose addresses were posted.

   "We hope that two or three electors will agree with our
   logic," said Mr. Enrich, who said he and Mr. Grossmann side
   with neither candidate. He also said they do not endorse the
   implied threat of investigating electors' backgrounds that
   was raised by Democratic consultant Bob Beckel of Alexandria
   during a cable-television interview.

   "I'm trying to kidnap these electors in states that [Mr.
   Bush] won that are not legally bound to him that have a
   right to vote how they want to," said Mr. Beckel, whose plan
   was publicly disavowed by Mr. Christopher.

   While conceding that Mr. Beckel would not break any laws so
   long as he avoided coercive acts that look like extortion,
   constitutional law professor Paul Campos, of the University
   of Colorado, countered with a war of words against the
   crusade.

   "I think the unfortunate tendency we have in this culture is
   to equate what is legal with what is sort of decent," Mr.
   Campos told The Times. "You can go on television and
   announce your plans to burgle the presidency of the United
   States, and nobody blinks an eye. The very fact that
   Beckel's plan could actually succeed . . . is a testament to
   the risk that a kind of mad corruption will soon engulf this
   whole affair."

   Mr. McCutcheon, the West Virginia elector, agreed and said
   the modest Beckel plan to find three votes may fail only
   because he went public, galvanizing Republican slates
   nationwide.

   "Beckel might have succeeded if he hadn't been open and
   notorious," Mr. McCutcheon said. "What the coordinated
   effort by the other side has done is make us all stick
   together."

response 27 of 57:

Dec 16 00:55 UTC 2000

You can still win electors by demonic possession.

response 29 of 57:

Dec 16 19:39 UTC 2000

Satan for President!  :)

response 31 of 57:

Dec 16 20:04 UTC 2000

It depends on whether we are going to continue to be a federation of
independent polities or become one big megastate. Whatever the choice, though,
winner-take-all-by-state has to go. If we continue the compact-of-governances
model, the proper way to do presidential elections is:

* Each State gets *two* electors, that th respective States may choose
  any way they want;

* Each *Congressional district* gets one elector, selected by popular vote
  within the respective districts.

This better mirrors the way Congress is set up, and makes popular/electoral
result mismatches a lot less likely.

DC could still have its three votes, I guess. AFAIAC, DC should get squat,
as a political entity. Instead, let each person in DC vote as a resident of
his State of origin - and be able to choose a state of origin if it's not
known. DC is supposed to be common territory - an extrality zone, if you will.