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

[Tara Ross]

Rob, you say that "it wouldn't be hard in October 2000 to think that
affecting a relatively small number of vote totals in Florida might have
a huge impact on the national outcome." I go back to my original
statement: "if you can do it, then probably many people from both
parties have made the same prediction." Once everyone expects it, then
it becomes like Ohio in 2004.   Poll watchers descend on the state, etc.


Your real argument here is that I am being too flip about whether
Florida was predictable. You are saying that I should have lumped the
2000 election into the same category as the 2004 election: People
suspect one state is going to matter.  Everyone watches it.  Fraud is as
hard as possible.  This situation is still better than a direct election
system in which any vote stolen in any precinct in the country impacts
the national outcome.

It's a little beside the point, but I still don't think that anyone
really knew what was about to hit us in Florida.  Thinking that one
state is important is not the same as predicting that a few hundred
stolen votes in a handful of Florida counties will determine the
identity of our next President.  Moreover, it seems probable to me that
the election still wouldn't have been that close but for the early
network calls for Gore.  It was irresponsible journalism to call a state
for a candidate while polls were still open in that state.  The close
election was really a perfect storm of sorts.
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Richie [mailto:rr at fairvote.org] 
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 12:57 PM
To: Tara Ross
Cc: John Koza; 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,

Below is a link to a New York Times story from October 2000, a couple
weeks before the election, in which Al Gore is quoted as follows as he
campaigned in Florida: ''This state is the key to this election, and
Central Florida is the key to this state.''

That seems to suggest it wouldn't be hard in October 2000 to think that
affecting a relatively small number of vote totals in Florida might have
a huge impact on the national outcome..

Indeed, in any presidential campaign, campaigns try to calculate what
could be tipping point states. Even in 2008, when Obama won reasonably
comfortably, you can be sure the campaigns were spending extra efforts
in states that they could reliably project would be very close if the
popular vote ended up being closer.

With that in mind, it was exceptionally easy to know that Florida would
be close in 2000. In addition to the NY Times story, a quick internet
search found this Reuters story from early October, for example, about
the potential impact of Pat Buchanan, given that polls showed Florida to
be "a dead heat."

Now, in 2012, there already is talk about what it might mean if Virgil
Goode gets a few percentages of the vote in Virginia that otherwise
might go to Romney. Republicans apparently are worried that the the NOTA
option in Nevada may draw from Romney votes more than Obama votes. There
is incredible amounts of money being poured into a few states where
those paying the bills hope that their spending may sway relatively
small numbers of votes. There are big fights underway about the voting
process in the few states that have any chance to tip the election.

So if you're trying to make fraud less impactful, there's a very strong
argument for going to a national popular vote, where actual vote totals
can vary from vote total projections early on Election Day by millions
of votes (for example, a lot of people thought exit polls indicated
Kerry might win the 2004 election when in fact he lost the national
popular vote by more than three million votes).

- Rob Richie

#######
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/oct/03/news/mn-30344

Buchanan Wins Spot on Ballot in Battleground Florida October 03,
2000|From Reuters

MIAMI - Reform Party nominee Pat Buchanan won a spot on the presidential
ballot Monday in hotly contested Florida, where polls show Democrat Al
Gore and Republican George W. Bush in a dead heat.

Opinion polls among likely Florida voters have shown only 1% to 3%
supporting Buchanan, the conservative commentator who ran unsuccessfully
for the Republican presidential nomination in 1992 and 1996. But with
Gore and Bush tied in the race for Florida's 25 electoral votes,
Buchanan could affect the outcome if he draws more heavily from one main
party...


http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/25/us/the-2000-campaign-the-battlegrounds
-florida-interstate-s-heavy-campaign-traffic.html

THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: THE BATTLEGROUNDS; Florida Interstate's Heavy
Campaign Traffic By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM
Published: October 25, 2000

The parties and the presidential candidates are concentrating their
campaigns in Florida in these last, tense days before the election on
the cities and towns along Interstate 4.....

...They may be getting more attention these days than any other voters
in the country as the candidates compete for Florida's 25 electoral
votes. Hardly a day goes by when one of the presidential or
vice-presidential candidates, or a family member, or a prominent
supporter from outside the state is not campaigning somewhere along this
narrow corridor.

''This state is the key to this election,'' Vice President Al Gore
declared at a rally in Orlando earlier this month, ''and Central Florida
is the key to this state.''


On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Tara Ross <tara at taraross.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election




--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"

Rob Richie
Executive Director

FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
www.fairvote.org  rr at fairvote.org
(301) 270-4616

Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations --
see http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider
a gift to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's  CFC
number is 10132.) Thank you!