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

Wed Jan 4 10:40:21 PST 2012

The absence of a uniform national standard for determining which ballots
should be counted would heat hings up a bit

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net>wrote:

> If there was a result in the popular vote within the margin of error
> wouldn't that mean all ballots would need to be re-counted in all states?
> Simply re-counting one close state would ignore the possibility of errors
> in
> other states that could impact the total in an election that was that
> close.
> Larry
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lowenstein, Daniel" <lowenstein at law.ucla.edu>
> To: "Jamin Raskin" <raskin at wcl.american.edu>; <rhasen at law.uci.edu>;
> <law-election at uci.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 9:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [EL] Tight Primary Results--Do they Discredit the National
> Popular Vote Plan?
>
>
>       My post was a response to Rick's comment, not to the Iowa results.
>
>       The odds against a result within what Rick calls the margin of error
> in either a state that is decisive in the electoral college or in a
> national
> popular vote are both extremely great.  But the consequences of the latter
> would be far more troublesome than the former proved to be.
>
>             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: Jamin Raskin [raskin at wcl.american.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 4:15 AM
> To: Lowenstein, Daniel; rhasen at law.uci.edu; law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] Tight Primary Results--Do they Discredit the National
> Popular Vote Plan?
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120104/7be00649/attachment.html>