On October 28, the Federalist Society posting this on-line debate over the National Popular Vote Plan, between Tara Ross (who argues for the existing system) and Maryland State Senator Jaime Raskin (who supports the National Popular Vote Plan). Thanks to Rick Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog for the link. Ross and most other supporters of the Electoral College as it functions today usually express hostility toward minor parties and independent candidates, and this debate is no exception for her.

The irony is that Electoral College, as it functions today, actually helps minor party and independent presidential candidates. Voters nowadays are generally aware of whether their own state is considered a “swing state”, or whether it is hopelessly “safe” for one of the two major party nominees. These aware voters take that information into consideration when deciding whether to vote for a minor party or independent presidential candidate or not. For instance, on October 28, Noam Chomsky said that since he lives in Massachusetts, he will be voting for Ralph Nader. Chomsky recommended that other voters who live in “safe” states, and who favor single-payer medical insurance, should likewise vote for Nader. If we had a direct popular vote for president, Chomsky would presumably be voting for Obama.

On October 20, the Georgia Supreme Court heard Handel v Powell, in which the Republican Secretary of State argues that Democratic Public Service Commissioner candidate Jim Powell should be removed from the ballot. Ten days have passed and the Court hasn’t issued any order. Here is an article about the controversy.

On October 29, U.S. District Court Judge Harvey Bartle, a Bush Sr. appointee, issued an injunction, requiring Pennsylvania to furnish emergency paper ballots to any precinct at which at least half the electronic vote-counting machines have broken down. NAACP v Cortes, 08-cv-5048.

The state’s position had been that it would only provide such paper ballots to precincts in which all the machines had ceased to work. The decision says, “Some waiting in line, of course, is inevitable and must be expected. One must always choose between and among a number of candidates for different offices listed on the ballot and often, as in this election, there are questions to be read and considered. All of this takes time. Nonetheless, there can come a point when the burden of standing in a queue ceases to be an inconvenience or annoyance and becomes a constitutional violation because it, in effect, denies a person the right to exercise his or her franchise.” Thanks to Rick Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog for this news.