[EL] National Popular Vote Interstate Compact / Winner-take-all rule increases effect of weather (and has changed national outcome in the past)

[John Koza]

I think Mark Scarberry got the hurricane issue exactly backwards. The
winner-take-all rule increases the effects of bad weather (and has in the
past).

 

But, before responding to the hurricane issue, let me say that if I were
defending a system that disenfranchises 4 out of 5 Americans, distorts
presidential policy-making, repeatedly creates artificial recount crises
when nationwide sentiment was clear, I, too might resort to hurricanes as
justification for the winner-take-all rule.

 

Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all rule, a small difference in
turnout (caused by bad weather or any other factor) in one part of a closely
divided battleground state can potentially reverse the outcome in that state
(and potentially reverse the outcome of a national election). In contrast, a
small localized reduction in turnout is unlikely to have any material effect
on the outcome in a nationwide vote for President.

 

A study of past weather conditions indicates that bad weather reversed the
statewide outcome in Florida in 2000 (and hence the national outcome). 

 

The state-by-state winner-take-all rule does indeed ensure that a state
affected by a turnout-depressing event (such as bad weather or a hurricane)
will nonetheless cast its full number of electoral votes in the Electoral
College. However, the winner-take-all rule can result in those electoral
votes being cast in a way that is unrepresentative of normal voter sentiment
in the state. 

 

Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all rule, a small difference in
turnout (caused by bad weather or any other factor) in one part of a closely
divided battleground state can potentially reverse the outcome in that state
(and potentially reverse the outcome of a national election). In contrast, a
small localized reduction in turnout is unlikely to affect the outcome in a
nationwide vote for President. 

 

An article entitled "The Weather and the Election" from Oklahoma Weather Lab
at the University of Oklahoma commented on a 2007 study in the Journal of
Politics: 

 

"Gomez et al. collected meteorological data recorded at weather stations
across the lower 48 United States for presidential election days between
1948 and 2000, and interpolated these data to get rain and snowfall totals
for each election day for each county in the entire nation. They then
compared these rain and snowfall data with voter turnout for each county,
and performed statistical regressions to determine whether or not rain and
snow (bad weather) had a negative impact on voter turnout.

"What they found was that each inch of rain experienced on election day
drove down voter turnout by an average of just under 1%, while each inch of
snow knocked 0.5% off turnout. Though the effect of snow is less on a 'per
inch' basis, since multiple-inch snowfall totals are far more common than
multiple-inch rainfall events, we can conclude that snow is likely to have a
bigger negative impact on voter turnout.

"Furthermore, Gomez et al. noted that when bad weather did suppress voter
turnout, it tended to do so in favor of the Republican candidate, to the
tune of around 2.5% for each inch of rainfall above normal. In fact, when
they simulated the 14 presidential elections between 1948 and 2000 with
sunny conditions nationwide, they found two instances in which bad weather
likely changed the electoral college outcome-once in North Carolina in 1992,
and once in Florida in 2000. The latter change is particularly notable, as
it would have resulted in Al Gore rather than George Bush winning the
presidential election that year." 

 

The political effect of a hurricane in, say, Florida would depend on the
location of the hurricane's landfall. Hillsborough County is on the state's
west coast and contains the city of Tampa. Tampa was the site of the 2012
Republican National Convention that was, in fact, disrupted by a hurricane
that only minimally affected Florida's southeastern coast. In the November
2000 presidential election, George W. Bush received 180,794 votes in
Hillsborough County to Al Gore's 169,576 votes-giving Bush a county-wide
margin of 11,218 votes. In 2000, Bush won Florida by 537 votes out of
5,963,110 votes. If a hurricane had even slightly depressed turnout in
Hillsborough County in November 2000, 100% of Florida's electoral votes
would have gone to Al Gore (and Al Gore would have become President). 

 

Conversely, if bad weather depressed turnout in southeastern counties as
Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach, 100% of the electoral votes of the
often-critical battleground state of Florida might go to the Republican
presidential nominee. 

 

It is often said that everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does
anything about it. Neither the National Popular Vote compact nor the
winner-take-all rule can do anything about the weather; however, a national
popular vote for President would reduce the likelihood that bad weather
could reverse the outcome of a presidential election.

 

Dr. John R. Koza, Chair

National Popular Vote

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

 

From: Scarberry, Mark [mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu] 
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 9:12 AM
To: 'Election Law'
Subject: Re: [EL] National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

 

Note also that the effect of a storm like Sandy in depressing turnout in a
region of the country would be more likely to distort the election results
under a popular vote system, given the great regional divide in our
political preferences. 

 

Mark S. Scarberry

Pepperdine Univ. School of Law

Malibu, CA 90263

(310)506-4667

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121029/218d1bb1/attachment.html>