patrick.net

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?

Since 2006, the bill has been introduced in legislatures in all 50 states. The text of the Compact is virtually the same in every state. Each state's bill(s) are easy to find. Wikipedia lists each https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.

The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and requires each state to treat as "conclusive" each other state's "final determination" of its vote for President. No state has any power to examine or judge the presidential election returns of any other state now or under the National Popular Vote compact.

The current presidential election system makes a repeat of 2000 more likely. All you need is a thin and contested margin in a single state with enough electoral votes to make a difference. It's much less likely that the national vote will be close enough that voting irregularities in a single area will swing enough net votes to make a difference. If we'd had National Popular Vote in 2000, a recount in Florida would not have been an issue.

The implication that recounts will be likely and messy with National Popular Vote is distracting.

No recount, much less a nationwide recount, would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 57 presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.
The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
“It’s an arsonist itching to burn down the whole neighborhood by torching a single house.” Hertzberg

The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore's nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.

Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state by-state winner-take-all methods.

The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.

The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.

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 with the National Popular Vote. 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.

The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets.

If Ohio or Georgia declare that either of those states cast 10 trillion votes for the Republican nominee, OBVIOUSLY that would not be accepted as legitimate by anyone.

The 2000 presidential election was determined by a mere 537 popular votes in Florida.

otto says

Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

The paperless system, obviously.

otto says

If Ohio or Georgia declare that either of those states cast 10 trillion votes for the Republican nominee, OBVIOUSLY that would not be accepted as legitimate by anyone.

And yet, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has no mechanism for other states to challenge or recount it, even though it would OBVIOUSLY not be legitimate. There is also no mechanism to challenge fraud or error on a more likely scale, e.g. a million paperless votes for Democrats getting reassigned to Republicans in a state that has at least 5 million total. Georgia and Ohio each have 10 million people, and in a Presidential election each can produce at least 5 million votes. Florida can also (notoriously) produce 6 million votes in a Presidential election; why do you want the votes of California subjugated to the "Honorable" Katherine Harris, former GW Bush Campaign Chair and Florida Secretary of State?

otto says

All of the support for the National Popular Vote bill has not come from blue states.

Let me rephrase: all of the actual enactments have come from blue jurisdictions, i.e. blue states and DC. As with Obamneycare, Republicans kept their fingerprints off the enactment, letting gullible Democrats insist on doing their dirty work for them.

"Under federal law an objection to a state’s Electoral votes may be made to the President of the Senate during Congress’s counting of Electoral votes in January. The objection must be made in writing and signed by at least one Senator and one member of the House of Representatives. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives debate the objection separately. Debate is limited to two hours. After the debate, both the Senate and the House of Representatives rejoin and both must agree to reject the votes.

In January 2005, Ohio’s 20 Electoral votes were challenged. After debate, the Senate and the House failed to agree to reject the votes. Ohio’s 20 Electoral votes for President Bush and Vice President Cheney were counted."

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/print_friendly.html?page=faq_content.html&title=U.%20S.%20Electoral%20College%3A%20Frequently%20Asked%20Questions#contestvotes

Under the current system, the electoral votes from all 50 states are comingled and simply added together, irrespective of the fact that the electoral-vote outcome from each state was affected by differences in state policies, including voter registration, ex-felon voting, hours of voting, amount and nature of advance voting, and voter identification requirements.

The 2000 Certificate of Ascertainment from the state of Florida reported 2,912,790 popular votes for George W. Bush and 2,912,253 popular vote for Al Gore, and also reported 25 electoral votes for George W. Bush and 0 electoral votes for Al Gore. Because of a mere 537 vote statewide win, the 25–0 division of the electoral votes from Florida determined the outcome of the national election.

Neither the current system nor the National Popular Vote compact permits any state to get involved in judging the election returns of other states. Federal law (the "safe harbor" provision in section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code) specifies that a state's "final determination" of its presidential election returns is "conclusive"(if done in a timely manner and in accordance with laws that existed prior to Election Day). National Popular Vote is based on the same legal mechanisms and standards that have governed presidential elections since 1880.

The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and requires each state to treat as "conclusive" each other state's "final determination" of its vote for President. No state has any power to examine or judge the presidential election returns of any other state under the National Popular Vote compact.

otto says

After the debate, both the Senate and the House of Representatives rejoin and both must agree to reject the votes.

You are aware that Republicans control both the Senate and the House, yes?

otto says

Under the current system....

If you are going to quote talking points, as you did, you should at least link for attribution rather than plagiarize. A Google search found your talking points on various websites, including a Tea Party site and the aptly named "straight dope."

I wonder what to call someone who wants Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan to decide whether California voters should be subjugated to Republican machines in Georgia and Ohio. I suppose "Tea Partier" or "dope" are the two most likely answers.

curious2 says

After the 2000 election debacle, why would Democrats "reform" the system by making their own voters even more vulnerable?

Because they are disingenuous political hacks, that attacks politics like it's a Blue team against the Red team foot ball bowl game.

Talk about vulnerable . . .
Again, you are ignoring that with the current system we have lived through 537 votes in one state determining a presidential election, despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide, without requiring any over the top conspiracy of states fraudulently reporting millions of voters.

The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012).
A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.
In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.

In the 2012 presidential election, 1.3 million votes decided the winner in the ten states with the closest margins of victory.

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012.
Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).
38 states had no campaign events, and miniscule or no spending for TV ads.

There are only expected to be 7 remaining swing states in 2016 - Florida (29 electoral votes), Ohio (18), Virginia (13), Colorado (9), Nevada (6), Iowa (6) and New Hampshire (4)

The predictability of the winner of the state you live in determines how much, if at all, your vote matters.

Issues of importance to non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them.

Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

“Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

Ugh - again you've copied and pasted talking points without even bothering to link whom you're parroting/plagiarizing. I had already read the talking points. I posted this thread because the talking points don't add up.

otto says

Again, you are ignoring that with the current system we have lived through 537 votes in one state determining a presidential election, despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide, without requiring any over the top conspiracy of states fraudulently reporting millions of voters.

I am certainly not ignoring what happened in Florida in 2000. Democrats ignored it when they took power in 2009. Why do you suppose that is? They had enough votes to enact practically anything, and yet they failed to enact electoral reform. They could have funded reliable paper ballot machines for every precinct nationwide to ensure every vote would be counted reliably, but they chose not to do that. The system was working perfectly from the POV of their corporate sponsors, no change required. The "change" you hope for now would have enabled Republicans to achieve the same result as in 2000 even more easily, using paperless ballots. As with Obamneycare, Democrats propose "reforms" to worsen the problem.

Tenpoundbass says

Because they are disingenuous political hacks, that attacks politics like it's a Blue team against the Red team foot ball bowl game.

Michael Moore made the same point, and it seems entirely correct.

I find it interesting that nobody has even tried to defend this NPVIC except "otto," who had never commented on PatNet before, but who had copied and pasted many of the same talking points elsewhere on the WWW (for example, here and here). I am guessing that "otto" is paid to search "NPVIC" on Google and elsewhere every day, and plaster pre-authorized talking points anywhere it's mentioned. Who is paying the shills for this legislation, and cui bono?

"Georgia -- where Republicans scored spectacular upset victories in the 2002 midterm elections -- relies exclusively on Diebold machines... Bev Harris, who is writing a book on voting machines, found Diebold software -- which the company refuses to make available for public inspection, on the grounds that it's proprietary -- on an unprotected server, where anyone could download it. (The software was in a folder titled ''rob-Georgia.zip.'') The server was used by employees of Diebold Election Systems to update software on its machines. This in itself was an incredible breach of security, offering someone who wanted to hack into the machines both the information and the opportunity to do so.

An analysis of Diebold software by researchers at Johns Hopkins and Rice Universities found it both unreliable and subject to abuse. A later report commissioned by the state of Maryland apparently reached similar conclusions."

"Nearly one in four voters in [2010 used] e-voting systems with no paper records"

Why did Democrats in 2009-2011 fail to address the risk of these paperless machines, despite having power to enact legislation and fund paper ballot machines? Why would Democrats in California want their votes subjugated to unaccountable machines in Georgia, which is controlled by Republicans? And who is paying "otto" and other astroturf shills to require this result?