patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,364,578 comments by 15,736 users - Ceffer, floki, HANrongli online now
Comments 1 - 2 of 57 Next » Last » Search these comments
All of the support for the National Popular Vote bill has not come from blue states.
In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Supporters include former Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)
More than 2,610 state legislators (in 50 states) have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the National Popular Vote bill.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9).
The closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.
For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.
Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?
Comments 1 - 2 of 57 Next » Last » Search these comments
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has achieved 61% of the electoral votes necessary to overcome the Electoral College. All of the enactments have come from "blue" (Democratic) states.
Some opponents have pointed out a risk of fraud, but supporters seem to dismiss or at least underestimate that risk.
I tried to link directly to the text of the Compact on the NPVIC website, but it is buried in Chapter 6 of their ebook PDF. It says that "the chief election official of each member state shall determine the number of votes...The chief election official of each member state shall treat as conclusive an official statement containing the number of popular votes in a state for each presidential slate made by the day established by federal law for making a state’s final determination conclusive as to the counting of electoral votes by Congress."
The Compact contains no provision for recounts, nor challenges, nor even paper ballots.
In a growing number of states, Republicans running state government mandated statewide paperless ballot machines, made by Diebold, which was run by a prominent Republican fundraiser for GW Bush. (Following a sale and change of corporate names, the machines are now made by "Premier Election Solutions," a renamed subsidiary of Dominion.) Computer scientists found the machines could easily be hacked, leaving no audit trail.
If the machines in Republican Ohio or Georgia declare that either of those states cast 10 trillion votes for the Republican nominee, why would Democrats want to commit their own states' electoral votes to follow? Back when Richard Daley ran Chicago, finding an extra 20 trillion votes might have been no problem, but is Rahm Emanuel up to the task? Why would Democrats, ostensibly the party of democracy, want to subordinate their states' votes to the Republican officials in Ohio and Georgia? After the 2000 election debacle, why would Democrats "reform" the system by making their own voters even more vulnerable?
#politics