Bruce Ackerman has made an interesting and almost certainly unworkable proposal for the strategic future of the Nader campaign:
If he does, he will provide voters with a new degree of freedom. On Election Day, they will see a line on the ballot designating Ralph Nader's electors. But if voters choose the Nader line, they won't be wasting their ballot on a candidate with little chance of winning. Since Mr. Nader's slate would be the same as Mr. Kerry's, his voters would be providing additional support for the electors selected by the Democrats. If the Nader-Kerry total is a majority in any state, the victorious electors would be free to vote for Mr. Kerry.
In case this doesn't make sense, I will try to clarify. Ackerman is saying that, technically, we vote directly for a group of electors on Election Day, and not for a Pres/VP pair or even a group designated as "Kerry's electors" or "Democratic electors." He's saying the votes cast are cast directly for the electors named by each campaign or party.
A close reading of the Constitution and the U.S. Code shows that basically the entire procedure, up to the point that electors actually vote, is left up to the several states. States get to decide how electors are chosen by the campaigns and how they are voted for by the electorate. Though each state will have its own statutes, it is conceivable that at least some would allow for these kinds of shenanigans. However, I think that the moment Nader made any noise about trying to do this, every such state would rewrite their election law to clarify that votes are cast for a Presidential ticket, and that the electors chosen by the winning ticket get to cast votes in the Electoral College.
It's a nice try, though; it's one of the few loopholes we have that, if left open, might show us that proportional representation isn't that scary after all.
Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra ::: 2004:05:05:13:19