Skip to main content

View Diary: Defending a System that Has Long Since Collapsed: The Electoral College (155 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  My concern about National Popular Vote (0+ / 0-)

    A few other commenters have brought this up, but maybe I can state it more clearly.

    I'm concerned there would be cheating, or the perception of cheating, or false accusations of cheating, by the states that lean heavily towards one party, with no way of resolving them.

    We all know that only a part of the population votes.

    So, assuming that many of the states are heavily "red" or "blue" there would be an advantage for one of those states to  a) get as many of it's voters to the polls as possible, so that the party that was favored in that state would have more votes in the national popular vote, or b) inflate the vote count.

    Or for one party to falsely accuse a state dominated by the opposing party of  inflating its vote count.

    And we have no independent federal-level body that can oversee and adjudicate all of this.

    •  Current System Maxmizes Opp & Effectiveness (0+ / 0-)

      The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

      National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression.  One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

      The closest popular-vote election in 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 voter suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site