[EL] Two thoughts on the Electoral College and National Popular Vote

Tue Nov 27 10:14:26 PST 2012

Prior to the 1888 presidential election, Congress passed a law which is now in 3 USC 6.  It tells all jurisdictions that have electoral votes that they must notify the national archivist of the United States of "the canvass or other ascertainment of the number of votes given or cast for each person for whose appointment any and all votes have been given or cast."

In other words, the states (and DC) must tell the National Archivist how many votes each candidate for presidential elector received.  Therefore, there is an official national popular vote total for president.  Starting in 1980, all states have forced voters to vote for an entire slate of presidential electors.  Before 1920, all state ballots let voters choose which individual presidential elector candidates to vote for.  During the period 1920-1980 the states gradually started removing the option for voters to pick and choose elector candidates from competing slates.

Starting in high school, I was among the many people who have been fascinated by inexact national popular vote totals for president.  That is how I got interested in election returns.  The reason these numbers have differed over the years are many, including:  (1) sometimes states certified their official vote totals before every county had sent in the returns; this was especially a problem in Texas.  Some researchers would then find the totals for the missing counties and add them in; (2) during the period when voters could vote for individual candidates for presidential elector, some national compilers would calcuate the average vote for each elector on a particular tickeet, but other compilers would choose the highest vote-getting elector candidate; (3) sometimes the election returns would not clearly show which presidential candidate a presidential elector candidate was pledged to; (4) in the 20th century, some states would include write-ins for
 presidential candidates even though that write-in candidate had no list of presidential electors, and some compilers would include these votes and others wouldn't (this problem has been solved in most states by laws that require write-in presidential candidates to submit a list of elector candidates in advance of the election).

This may seem like a lengthy and boring e-mail, but the point is that there is an official national popular vote total for president, and this has been true especially starting in 1980.

Richard Winger

415-922-9779

PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

--- On Tue, 11/27/12, Renee Christensen <RChristensen at dcboee.org> wrote:

From: Renee Christensen <RChristensen at dcboee.org>
Subject: Re: [EL] Two thoughts on the Electoral College and National Popular Vote
To: "law-election at UCI.EDU" <law-election at uci.edu>
Date: Tuesday, November 27, 2012, 9:53 AM

Just a comment re “17
states have completed their tallies”.  Not sure if the author is
using the phrase “completed their tallies” deliberately, or mixing
up “completed their tallies” with the state’s final action of
certifying election results. 

Here in DC, the Board of
Elections has completed the tallying of votes, is currently doing a statutorily
required pre-certification audit, with tentative certification scheduled for
Thursday.     

From:
law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Sean
Parnell

Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 11:52 AM

To: law-election at UCI.EDU

Subject: [EL] Two thoughts on the Electoral College and National Popular
Vote 

Two items came across my Twitter feed today (h/t to Rick for
both) that I think have some bearing on the whole National Popular
Vote/Electoral Issue. 

1.      
Apparently only 17 states have completed their count of
all ballots, per this USA Today editorial (as a rule, I abhor citing
editorials, but I’m going to trust they got this fact right): http://usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/11/26/counting-votes-voting-system/1728529/
I think the implications for National Popular Vote are pretty obvious –
had this been a closer election (say, Bush-Gore or Kennedy-Nixon close)
we’d still not know who the president was, and there would be horrific
legal battles being waged right now all across the country over which ballots
should or should not be counted. The Electoral College seems to have provided
conclusive clarity rather quickly.  

  2.      Second,
  apparently there’s a theory floating around out there that Romney could
  still be elected by the House of Representatives if a number of states voting
  for Romney failed to submit their electoral votes, depriving the Electoral
  College of a quorum (see here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/11/27/2360565/lawmaker-shares-last-chance-idea.html).
  Absolute malarkey, to borrow from our Vice President. Still, it does help to
  show the fallacy of what I call the ‘English
  Bob’ theory touted by advocates of National Popular Vote, which is
  basically that the passage of NPV would be so popular and accepted that there
  would be little thought of challenge through the courts or legislative hanky
  panky. To paraphrase, “Well there's a dignity to National Popular Vote.
  A majesty that precludes the likelihood of partisan games. If you were to
  attempt to draft a lawsuit or bill aimed at changing the election your hands
  would shake as though palsied. I can assure you, if you did, that the
  popularity of NPV would cause you to dismiss all thoughts of resistance and
  you would stand... how shall I put it? In awe.” 

  And yes, I have been
  waiting for a long time to unleash my English Bob analogy. 

  Best, 

Sean Parnell 

President 

Impact Policy Management, LLC 

6411 Caleb Court 

Alexandria, VA  22315 

571-289-1374 (c) 

sean at impactpolicymanagement.com 

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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/20121127/591edfac/attachment.html>