[EL] Tight Primary Results--Do they Discredit the NationalPopular Vote Plan?
John Koza
john at johnkoza.com
Wed Jan 4 13:43:33 PST 2012
We need to distinguish between what happens in the real world, versus what
happens as a result of the 19 or so state laws that call or so-called
"automatic recount" in elections in the 1/2% neighborhood.
The historically observed 1-in-160 frequency of statewide recounts reflects
what real-world politicians do when they lose an election. It is based on
what real-world candidates actually did over a 10-year period concerning
2,884 statewide elections when they were faced with a close result. These
recounts reflect the decision of an actual candidate who thinks there is a
real possibility of actually changing the result. The historically observed
1-in-160 frequency reflects all the candidates who contemplated a recount on
election night, but who got sobered up by Wednesday morning and realized
that they weren't going to reverse the disappointing outcome (particularly
since the average change in a recount is only 296 votes).
REAL recounts have nothing to do with automatic recounts that may be
triggered by multi-thousand or-tens-of-thousand-vote differences. These
automatic recounts are for cosmetic and public-confidence reasons and have
nothing to do with any realistic possibility of affecting the result.
Turning every presidential election into 51 separate elections (i.e., our
current statewide winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes) is the
reason we have had 5 litigated state counts in a mere 56 presidential
elections. It is the statewide winner-take-all rule that creates these
artificial crises.
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Levine [mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 11:58 AM
To: John Koza; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Tight Primary Results--Do they Discredit the
NationalPopular Vote Plan?
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-ca
> ucus-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/shar
> e_save
> #url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D27367&title=The%20Lesso
> n%20fr
> om%20Tonight%E2%80%99s%20Iowa%20Results%20for%20Election%20Law&descrip
> tion=> 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