CDR: Re: A very brief politcal rant

[Jim Burnes]

On Thu, 09 Nov 2000, Ernest Hua wrote:

> > Are you arguing that there were people who did not know
> that they were voting for someone who was dead?
>
> Yes.  I agree that the appointment may or may not be
> considered legal, depending upon how the law is interpreted.
>
> However, what is abundantly clear to me is that most,
> if not all, of the electorate know that the guy is dead.
> It was in the news for weeks.
>

> If anyone is suggesting that there is some bait and switch
> going on, let's see the evidence.  Was there a news black
> out?  Where the news papers destroyed?  Radio stations cut
> off?  TV frequencies jammed?
>

Bait and switch is probably not the right term.  Let me think
of a better term.  How about fraud.  Promising voters special
favors if he is elected.  But thats the Hatch Act violation and
I digress.

> Please note that it is not clear yet whether this particular
> corner case of the law is well-defined.  The courts will
> decide that.  The courts may very well be required to void
> this appointment for some important Constitutional reason.
>
> Who knows?

I would say, 'case law be damned'.  A guy who doesn't exist
can't take office.  If he doesn't take office, he can't
be replaced.  You are assuming that the bulk of the people
who voted for Carnahan actually voted for anyone who is
a Democrat -- and that might well be so. But I doubt the
Federal Election Commision will think much of a ballot
where 'you vote Democratic -- we'll fill in the blank'
is a legitimate vote.

I would say the same for any 'candidate', but they Republican,
Democrat, Libertarian or Dead.

>
> My original point is that even if the courts find that the
> law is technically being violated, it may not necessarily
> void the appointment because the court may find that the
> violation is not serious enough to tell voters they cannot
> have what they want.


>

> Your statement about letting the voters have anything they
> want is clearly extreme and irrelevant in this case.  This
> case is decided on subtleties of the law and the exceptional
> circumstances, not the extremes you are alluding to.
>