[EL] Tight Primary Results--Do they Discredit the NationalPopular Vote Plan?
Larry Levine
larrylevine at earthlink.net
Wed Jan 4 11:57:50 PST 2012
The statement: "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" misses the mark.
One cannot rule out future recounts because earlier recounts have or have
not changed any specified number or percentage of votes. Many jurisdictions
of which I am aware have a proscribed percentage under which a re-count is
mandatory. Many also permit any candidate to request or demand a re-count
(and pay for it) regardless of the percentage of difference.
The Kennedy example across 50 states would average a 2,300 vote difference
state - a minut percentage in many states and well within the margin of a
re-count.
There is an additional point to consider. As there would be one national
pool of ballots, one could not re-count an individual state that had a close
election without also recounting all other states.
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Koza" <john at johnkoza.com>
To: <law-election at uci.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: [EL] Tight Primary Results--Do they Discredit the
NationalPopular Vote Plan?
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
View list directory