Why Bush v. Gore might mean that Clinton should be president: The EP argument against winner-take-al
Last edited Mon Dec 5, 2016, 01:11 PM - Edit history (1)
Why Bush v. Gore might mean that Clinton should be president: The EP argument against winner-take-all: #1p1vote
https://twitter.com/lessig/status/805426166433742850
The Equal Protection argument against “winner take all” in the Electoral College
https://medium.com/lessig/the-equal-protection-argument-against-winner-take-all-in-the-electoral-college-b09e8a49d777#.kyqhlyifa
= new reply since forum marked as read
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]
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.
.... Since Clinton beat Trump in California by 4 million votes, but beat him by only 2 million throughout the entire country; one can infer that Trump won the popular vote in the U.S. while Clinton won California.
Perhaps that is precisely the reason the framers of the U.S. Constitution implemented the Electoral College: it keeps voters from one or more populous states from overpowering people in every other state. ....
Watch Mike Pence try to defend Trump’s false claim that ‘millions’ voted illegally
Last edited Tue Dec 27, 2016, 12:07 PM - Edit history (2)
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.
