[EL] The Electoral College & NPV / “a guarantee of corruption" / Not hard to predict where votes matter in presidential election

Thu Aug 30 10:12:03 PDT 2012

Two thoughts: 

(1) I also said: “But if you can do it, then probably many people from both parties have made the same prediction.”

(2) In context, I think the difference here is that I am discussing one state (2000) or two states (1960) that could change the election. Elections don’t normally come down to only one or two states. By contrast, John is discussing many more swing states, any one of which could be “the” state that matters.  No one has any way of knowing which one or two of those states might end up being “the” state that swings the election.  Assuming the election comes down to one state…..which it probably won’t.

By way of further explanation: No one could possibly have known what was going to happen in Florida in 2000. If someone claims they “knew” that the election would come down to a few hundred votes in Florida, then they are lying.  The 2004 election strikes me as the closest example of a time when someone **might** have suspected that one state (Ohio) would be “the” state that changed the election.  (The results were not really that close in the end, but a changed outcome in Ohio would have changed the outcome and elected Kerry.) As a result of this “prediction,” many, many poll watchers and others descended upon the state to monitor the vote. I’m sure it wasn’t impossible to steal votes in Ohio that year (because I doubt that it is ever completely impossible), but it was very, very difficult compared to what it would otherwise have been.

Meanwhile, throughout this process in 2004, I do not doubt that it remained extremely easy to steal votes in some portions of Texas and California.  I am happy that the easily stolen votes in Texas and California were irrelevant with the Electoral College system in place—had a direct election been in place that year, those easily stolen votes would have affected the national total.  And I remain happy that Ohio was so closely watched that year. Without the Electoral College, poll watchers would have needed to work equally hard to monitor each and every precinct nationwide—an impossible task. 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of John Koza
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 11:33 AM
To: law-election at UCI.EDU
Subject: Re: [EL]The Electoral College & NPV / “a guarantee of corruption" / Not hard to predict where votes matter in presidential election

Tara Ross says “in order to steal an election, … , you need to be able to predict, in advance, where to steal votes. That is hard to do.”

There really is no difficulty deciding where to steal votes under the current system—stolen votes matter in the closely divided battleground states. The battleground states are well-known to anyone who follows politics. For example, in a July 2012 article describing his “3-2-1 strategy,” Karl Rove identified six states that would probably decide the 2012 election. Most political observers would certainly agree with Rove’s identification of the states that matter. 

Dr. John R. Koza

Box 1441

Los Altos Hills, California 94023 USA

Phone: 650-941-0336

Fax: 650-941-9430

Email: john at johnkoza.com

URL: www.johnkoza.com 

URL: www.NationalPopularVote.com

From: Tara Ross [mailto:tara at taraross.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:15 AM
To: John Koza; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: RE: [EL]The Electoral College & NPV / “a guarantee of corruption"

Maybe there aren’t always prosecutions, but there are plenty of lawsuits and recounts in local elections.  And some people do think there is rampant fraud in many parts of the country….hence the ongoing debate on this listserv about voter ID laws.

Today, in order to steal an election, you need a few things going your way: First, you need to be able to predict, in advance, where to steal votes. That is hard to do. But if you can do it, then probably many people from both parties have made the same prediction. Second, the election needs to be close enough that just one or two changed state outcomes will matter to the final results.  That does happen sometimes (1960 and 2000 leap to mind), but elections are not typically that close, as a matter of history.  An interesting dynamic in our current system is that it is usually easy to steal votes where it does not matter to the national outcome (e.g., safe states dominated by one political party) and hard to steal votes where it might matter (e.g., swing states, which are usually overrun with poll watchers, etc.).

With any direct election system in place (whether it be NPV or a constitutional amendment), the situation is reversed.  Votes that are easy to steal in safe states—previously irrelevant—suddenly become critical to the national outcome.  There is no need to predict which swing state could change the outcome of the election. Any vote stolen in any part of the country—no matter how easy it was to steal—makes a difference.

I would never suggest that fraud can be completely eliminated (although that would be nice).  But our current system makes it as difficult as possible.

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of John Koza
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:49 AM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL]The Electoral College & NPV / “a guarantee of corruption"

Yesterday’s Election Blog mentioned that the 2012 Republican platform says that electing the President by a national popular vote would be

“a guarantee of corruption as every ballot box in every state would become a chance to steal the Presidency.”

Under the current system of electing the President, every vote in every precinct’s ballot box matters inside every battleground state and therefore represents, at the present time, “a chance to steal the Presidency.” If conducting an election in which the candidate receiving the most popular votes wins the office were “a guarantee of corruption,” then we should see evidence of rampant fraud today in every closely divided battleground state in every presidential election. 

Similarly, every vote in every precinct also matters in gubernatorial elections in all 50 states. If conducting a popular-vote election is “a guarantee of corruption,” then we should see evidence of rampant fraud today in every gubernatorial election in all 50 states. 

At any given time, there are over a thousand Republican and Democratic county prosecuting attorneys and about two dozen Republican and Democratic state attorney generals. Both Republicans and Democrats have occupied the office of Attorney General of the United States for multi-year periods in the recent past. 

If conducting an election in which the candidate receiving the most popular votes wins the office is “a guarantee of corruption,” then where are the prosecutions? 

The two conditions for effectively executing electoral fraud are that a very small number of people can have a large effect. 

Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system, there are huge incentives and major consequences for fraud and mischief, because a small number of people in a battleground state can affect a sufficient number of popular votes to swing a large number of electoral votes. 

As former congressman and presidential candidate Tom Tancredo (R–Colorado) said in an article entitled “Should every vote count?”

“The issue of voter fraud … won't entirely go away with the National Popular Vote plan, but it is harder to mobilize massive voter fraud on the national level without getting caught, than it is to do so in a few key states. Voter fraud is already a problem. The National Popular Vote makes it a smaller one.”

Dr. John R. Koza, Chair

National Popular Vote

Box 1441

Los Altos Hills, California 94023 USA

Phone: 650-941-0336

Fax: 650-941-9430

Email: john at johnkoza.com

URL: www.johnkoza.com 

URL: www.NationalPopularVote.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120830/978fbdcd/attachment.html>