Lawrence Lessig Urges U.S. Voters to Support Buddy Roemer for Americans Elect Nomination

Posted on by May 13, 2012
Reply

Lawrence Lessig, prominent law professor and author of several books on campaign finance reform, has this Atlantic Monthly column, urging his readers to vote for Buddy Roemer in the Americans Elect nomination system. Lessig says that his previous support of Americans Elect has garnered an angry reaction from many of his readers, who claim that the Americans Elect nominee might “spoil” President Obama’s chances for re-election, or Mitt Romney’s chances.

Lessig responds to this argument by pointing out that about a week ago, Roemer said he would withdraw from the election if he can’t win. In this recent column, Lessig is more specific. He says a few days before the election, Roemer would ask his voters not to vote for him, if polls show he can’t win. Lessig points out that, in a sense, the U.S. does have an informal version of Instant Runoff Voting. The polls can be considered to be the “first round”.

The problem with the Roemer maneuver is that in many states, early voting now means that elections are conducted with a month of voting, not just one day as in the past. Furthermore, not every voter would learn that Roemer had asked voters not to vote for him. It would be impossible to withdraw Roemer’s name from the ballot, just a few days before November 6, 2012.

Thomas D. Elias, one of California’s Most-Read Newspaper Columnists, Says Top-Two System Has a Wasteful Aspect to It

Posted on by May 13, 2012
5

Thomas D. Elias is a widely-read newspaper columnist. His column is syndicated in over fifty California daily and weekly newspapers. During the campaign involving Proposition 14, California’s top-two “open primary” system, Elias was one of the ballot measure’s most enthusiastic supporters. He wrote three or four columns in support of the measure.

Now, however, he describes the system as having a “wasteful” aspect to it. See his latest column here. He points out that it is overwhelmingly likely that U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein will poll more than 50% on June 5, on a ballot containing the names of 24 candidates for U.S. Senate from five different parties. But, as his column points out, it doesn’t matter how well she does; she will need to run again in November. That is because the Washington and California top-two systems were written to conform to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Foster v Love, issued in 1997. That decision told Louisiana it could no longer hold its first round of top-two congressional elections in September or October. Federal law, since 1872, has told the states to hold their congressional elections in November. If a state wants a run-off to guarantee that the winner gets 50%, that state must hold its run-off after November. California and Washington top-two proponents didn’t want to do that, so they wrote their measure so that there is always a congressional election in November, but only the top two vote-getters may run. They must run in November, even if one got an overwhelming majority in June. That is now being noticed, at least by Elias, and he correctly concludes that is wasteful, both for the candidates and the voters.

Not every California reporter understands this. For example, on Saturday, May 12, Lodi News-Sentinel reporter Ross Farrow wrote in this article, “The top two vote-getters will square off in the November general election. However, if any of the three congressional candidates get more than 50% of the vote, that candidate will win the election outright in June.” It is not surprising that many Californians, and even California newspaper reporters, are confused. Proponents of top-two constantly say the California top-two system is “just like” the standard two-round non-partisan elections in county elections. That is not correct, because in California non-partisan county elections (and also in a few California cities) the first round is an election, and a second round is only held if no one gets 50% in the election itself. Generally someone does get 50% in the election itself and no run-off is needed. UPDATE: The Lodi newspaper story has been corrected.