[EL] Tight Primary Results--Do they Discredit the National Popular Vote Plan?

[Jamin Raskin]

There are at least three problems with this post: 1. The National Popular Vote plan does not touch the presidential primary process.    2. The Florida 2000 problem is an artifact of the current way that states use the electoral college system in which corruption and dysfunction in a single state can control the outcome of the whole election.  Since Vice-President Gore had received more than a half-million votes more than Bush nationally in 2000, it would have made no difference under NPV rules whether it was Bush or Gore who finished a  vote or two ahead in Florida voting (much less the Supreme Court!).  Gore would have won.  3.  All the political-science studies I know of show that ties and close results are far more likely to occur in elections with smaller pools of voters, which is why they happen with some frequency in school board elections and small-state caucuses but almost never in even the closest of national elections.  Thus, it seems odd to use last night's results as an occasion to attack the NPV plan.
       yours,   Jamie

----- Original Message -----
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>; law-election at uci.edu <law-election at uci.edu>
Sent: Wed Jan 04 02:10:25 2012
Subject: [EL] Tight Results

       At least we don't have to worry about Florida x 50, as would be possible if there were a national popular vote system in effect.

             Best,

             Daniel H. Lowenstein
             Director, Center for the Liberal Arts and Free Institutions (CLAFI)
             UCLA Law School
             405 Hilgard
             Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
             310-825-5148


________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen [rhasen at law.uci.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 9:45 PM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 1/4/12

The Lesson from Tonight’s Iowa Results for Election Law<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27367>
Posted on January 3, 2012 9:40 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27367> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Elections can sometimes be close.  Very very close (as in 5 votes close as I write this post).  So close that the margin of error in counting the votes can exceed the margin of victory.  Fortunately tonight’s results won’t lead to a recount (for how the non-binding caucuses work, see here<http://theweek.com/article/index/222942/the-idiosyncratic-iowa-caucus-rules-a-guide>); whether Romney or Santorum wins is more about bragging rights than anything else.

But this could happen in a presidential election again, in a state that matters.  And we haven’t done nearly enough to fix the problems in our elections that became apparent in the 2000 Florida fiasco.  As I will argue<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=22990> in great detail soon, we are not prepared for the next election meltdown.

[cid:part1.01070400.08000704 at law.uci.edu]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D27367&title=The%20Lesson%20from%20Tonight%E2%80%99s%20Iowa%20Results%20for%20Election%20Law&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> | Comments Off

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120104/8e2a8190/attachment.html>