Rigging elections part 2

Dissent from the left coast:

In recent elections, the national popular vote has been very close (as a percent). To award a state's votes to the winner of the national popular vote could end up, very easily, with some strange results and lots of opportunities to skew that national popular vote through various tricks and illegalities.

Imagine CA and NY voting for a Dem. candidate solidly and having ALL of their votes cast in the electoral college for the Repub. candidate because TX, FL, OH and some other states were fraudulently listed as GOP winners by big margins, giving the GOP a national popular vote majority.

A nationwide law or uniform state laws that award electoral votes as split WITHIN each state is a progressive reform.

Having votes awarded en-block to a national majority that is potentially manipulated is the road to a one-party nation based on rigged elections.

The CA Dem response just sounds like a reform. Any system that ignores the state's internal voting to award a whole state's electoral vote to something outside the state is not progress.

It's a good objection. But the plan is also a great big fuck you to the electoral college as a whole--which is the appeal as I see it. In 2000, if Florida had a law like this, we'd be living in a much better world. And to be fair, the national popular votes have been close, but they've been uncontested. Nobody really thinks Bush won the NPV in 2000 and nobody thinks Kerry won it in 2004. If the people in TX, FL, and OH go out and vote in droves for Republicans, and Republicans win on the strength of a 60,000,000-59,500,000 split, then... Republicans have won the election.

Either that or I'm missing something crucial about the law or I'm misreading here:

Imagine CA and NY voting for a Dem. candidate solidly and having ALL of their votes cast in the electoral college for the Repub. candidate because TX, FL, OH and some other states were fraudulently listed as GOP winners by big margins, giving the GOP a national popular vote majority.

If you think the problem is with vote rigging in those states then I sympathize, but it's sort of a different problem, no?

OK, maybe I could attempt to be clearer. If the GOP wants to skew the election, all they'd have to do is go to a limited number of close-election states or states where they have control of the electoral machinery and rig the vote. This could be either ahead of time, with caging, and other Dem. vote-reduction tactics, or on election night with vote-count tactics (like FL in 2000) and swing those states. They can plan ahead and prepare to steal those states elections - perhaps in numerous smaller states in the south, or a few big states states where they are competitive.

By doing this, they eliminate the electoral count advantages that a NY or CA can offer. In effect, CA loses its ability to have its votes counted for their own electoral vote contribution since outside-CA results determine CA electoral votes.

This is just asking for trouble, especially when we know that the GOP has previously and recently tried to rig the outcome, and probably succeeded in 2000 in FL and 2004 in OH.

Maybe the CA Dem plan is an effective way of confusing the CA electorate on electoral college votes such that they reject both plans - since it has become hard to win a referenda in CA recently. But I sure wouldn't take that risk.

As a propaganda measure to blunt the CA GOP plan, I'd consider something more obviously bad like saying that CA electoral votes will be voted for the party/candidate that would have won nationally if any states who rig votes are identified and ignored. Let CA decide if FL or OH has rigged their votes. (this isn't a serious proposal).

One thing to be very clear about is that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and all of its constituent bills - including the California ballot initiative - would not take effect until states with electoral votes totalling over 270 (the threshold for victory) pass them. So it just hand the election to the winner of the popular vote; if only California passes this, the old system would still be in place.

Minipundit is right, and I don't understand why this is so hard for people to get. This would only go into effect when it is made certain that the winner of the popular vote wins the election. Therefore all of these theoreticals that "but California could vote for a Democrat and their votes would go to a Republican!" are irrelevant. The Electoral College would be made irrelevant. This is a way for the electoral college to be undermined without needing a Constitutional amendment. I'd be all for one of those, too, but my thoughts are "by any means necessary."

Incidentally, Maryland has already passed this through their legislature and the Governor signed it. 10 down, 260 to go.

Oh, I get it. But I think there are two different issues here. Let's pretend CA went off and did this on its own. Jim's worried about election rigging. I share, to some extent, his same concern. But that's a different issue. It remains an issue whether or not CA does this. If the GOP steals OH or FL now, they win anyhow. That's it's own problem--a huge one--and it needs to be addressed. But it's a problem no matter what.

Let's pretend it's 2000 and it's Gore v. Bush. Gore gets to keep CA unless Bush can steal hundreds of thousands of votes from all across the country.

Now pretend it's 2004 and it's Bush v. Kerry. Kerry loses no matter what, except that since CA goes to Bush, he loses by a bigger margin.

If Bush had stolen a thousand votes here and a thousand votes there to win FL AND OH's Electorates in 2000 he would have been no more the president than he was under the existing system. Either way, CA gives its votes to Gore. The change as I see it is that CA would be deferring to the will of the national population, and not to the Electoral College. And I like the sound of that.

Those who oppose the Electoral College have a simple argument. The national popular vote should determine the outcome of the President because it’s fair and logical. Those who support the Electoral College, or at least some wacky way to reform it, offer lengthy arguments about its fairness and necessity.

I oppose the Electoral College and here is my lengthy argument to combat the lengthy EC’s rhetoric. EC proponents fear that, with only a national popular vote, the large population centers of the country will determine any national election outcome, which, they say, is unfair. I say that the majority should rule, despite the location of its voters. The large population centers in New York and California contain diverse populations, the same diversity that can be found throughout the rest of the nation. This diversity reflects people of all socio-economic backgrounds, and of all beliefs, religious and otherwise. If the majority of New York's and California's people vote Democratic, it would only be fair to the rest of the nation's Democratic voters that the Democrat win, if and only if, the Democrat won the total popular vote.

Most Electoral College supporters speak of the so called majority of the nation--i.e. the red states--as if these states were too thinly populated to have a fair voice, that these states were exclusively and undeniably conservative, and that an Electoral College is the only way they can have a fair chance at winning. Not only are these assertions untrue, but they are based on the assumption that a state should determine the outcome of a national election when the choice should be up to the people.

People are people regardless of geographical state boundaries. Currently the Electoral College favors Republicans, and it could just as easily work the other way around. But right now, what’s unfair is that the EC effectively disenfranchises Democratic voters in the numerous Red States just to prevent the handful of Blue states from taking over. Is a low income single mother’s interest in Oklahoma different from her peer’s in New York? Maybe, maybe not. Don’t rich developers who desire tax breaks exist in every state? And shouldn’t their vote for the GOP candidate count even if they are from a bleeding heart Blue state? I don’t mean to imply any predictability of how certain people from different socio-economic backgrounds will vote. Nor do I mean to imply that only socio-economic backgrounds affect political outcomes as certainly a wide variety of issues have entered the national political arena. The point is that people’s interests vary not only from state to state but also vary within every state, city and town across the nation. The Presidency is a national office. Everybody’s vote count should count equally at the national level, regardless of how the Electoral College rules on behalf of each state’s majority.