[EL] Tight Primary Results--Do they Discredit the National Popular Vote Plan?
John Koza
john at johnkoza.com
Wed Jan 4 11:18:52 PST 2012
Dan is incorrect in saying that "The odds against a result within ... the
margin of error in ... a state that is decisive in the electoral college ...
[IS} extremely great."
In fact, there have been 5 litigated state counts in the nation's 56
presidential elections under the current state-by-state winner-take-all
system. This rate is dramatically higher than the historical 1-in-160 rate
for elections in which there is a single statewide pool of votes and in
which the winner is the candidate who receives the most popular votes. This
i-in-160 rate comes from a 10-year study of 2,884 elections (and corresponds
with whatever knows, namely recounts in ordinary elections are rare).
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system repeatedly creates
artificial crises because every presidential election generates 51 separate
opportunities for a razor-thin margin. Far from acting as a helpful
firewall to isolate fires, it is the repeated cause of unnecessary fires.
The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of
George W. Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in the state of Florida. Gore's
nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger than the
disputed 537-vote margin Florida).
Recounts would be far less likely under the National Popular Vote bill than
under the current system because there would be a single pool of votes.
Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections,
and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would
expect a recount about once in 640 years under the National Popular Vote
approach. The actual probability of a close national election would be even
less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.
The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide
recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.
Three-quarters of all recounts do not change the outcome.
Given the small number of votes changed in recounts, no recount would have
been warranted in any of the nation's 56 previous presidential elections if
the outcome had been based on the nationwide count. There was a recount, a
court case, and a reversal of the original outcome in Hawaii in 1960.
Kennedy ended up with a 115-vote margin in Hawaii in an election in which
his nationwide margin was 118,574.
A detailed discussion of recounts is discussed in section 10.15 of the book
"Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National
Popular Vote." I can be read or downloaded for free at
www.NationalPopularVote.com or purchased at Amazon.
Dr. John R. Koza, Chair
National Popular Vote
Box 1441
Los Altos Hills, California 94023 USA
URL: www.NationalPopularVote.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Lowenstein, Daniel [mailto:lowenstein at law.ucla.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 9:09 AM
To: Jamin Raskin; rhasen at law.uci.edu; law-election at uci.edu
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-r
ules-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%20fr
om%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
View list directory