You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #16: The potential for political fraud and mischief [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
mvymvy Donating Member (46 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #4
16. The potential for political fraud and mischief
is not uniquely associated with either the current system or a national popular vote. In fact, the current system magnifies the incentive for fraud and mischief in closely divided battleground states because all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state.

Under the current system, the national outcome can be affected by mischief in one of the closely divided battleground states (e.g., by overzealously or selectively purging voter rolls or by placing insufficient or defective voting equipment into the other party's precincts). The accidental use of the butterfly ballot by a Democratic election official in one county in Florida cost Gore an estimated 6,000 votes ― far more than the 537 popular votes that Gore needed to carry Florida and win the White House. However, even an accident involving 6,000 votes would have been a mere footnote if a nationwide count were used (where Gore's margin was 537,179). In the 7,645 statewide elections during the 26-year period from 1980 to 2006, the average change in the 23 statewide recounts was a mere 274 votes.

Senator Birch Bayh (DIndiana) summed up the concerns about possible fraud in a nationwide popular election for President in a Senate speech by saying in 1979, "one of the things we can do to limit fraud is to limit the benefits to be gained by fraud. Under a direct popular vote system, one fraudulent vote wins one vote in the return. In the electoral college system, one fraudulent vote could mean 45 electoral votes, 28 electoral votes."

Hendrik Hertzberg wrote: "To steal the closest popular-vote election in American history, youd have to steal more than a hundred thousand votes . . .To steal the closest electoral-vote election in American history, youd have to steal around 500 votes, all in one state. . . .

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 electionand, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

Which, I ask you, is an easier mark for vote-stealers, the status quo or N.P.V.? Which offers thieves a better shot at success for a smaller effort?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
  -Would a Third Party Throw the 2012 Presidential Election to the Repubs? Bill Bored  Dec-06-10 02:30 PM   #0 
  - Yes  dtotire   Dec-06-10 02:32 PM   #1 
  - Is this on anyone's radar? Has anyone figured out which states could be used to do it?  Bill Bored   Dec-06-10 02:38 PM   #4 
     - The potential for political fraud and mischief  mvymvy   Dec-07-10 10:45 AM   #16 
        - It's easier to verify who wins individual states. We just don't do it!  Bill Bored   Dec-07-10 11:16 PM   #20 
  - Yes, it has to be a majority of electoral votes.  MineralMan   Dec-06-10 02:35 PM   #2 
  - What about National Popular Vote (NPV)? Would that system require a majority? nt  Bill Bored   Dec-06-10 02:44 PM   #6 
     - We don't have that system, so I can't say. It doesn't seem  MineralMan   Dec-06-10 02:45 PM   #7 
     - Well it's closer than you think. See here:  Bill Bored   Dec-07-10 12:33 AM   #13 
        - Majority? Making NPV happen requires a Constitutional  MineralMan   Dec-07-10 08:08 AM   #14 
        - NPV does not require a Con. amendment, although that would be the better way to achieve it. nt  Bill Bored   Dec-07-10 11:09 PM   #19 
        - The National Popular Vote bill  mvymvy   Dec-07-10 10:37 AM   #15 
           - OK, so NPV does NOT require a majority of the NPV -- only "the most popular votes?"  Bill Bored   Dec-07-10 11:06 PM   #18 
     - You mean if we did away with the Electoral College?  hlthe2b   Dec-06-10 03:06 PM   #10 
  - Yup... it is so hard for a third party candidate to win in any state  hlthe2b   Dec-06-10 02:36 PM   #3 
  - Thanks and see post #6, nt  Bill Bored   Dec-06-10 02:45 PM   #8 
  - Not if it is the Teaparty running as a third party.  yourout   Dec-06-10 02:39 PM   #5 
  - It won't take a third party  notesdev   Dec-06-10 02:49 PM   #9 
  - True that.  eilen   Dec-06-10 03:07 PM   #11 
     - That's exactly what needs to be done  notesdev   Dec-06-10 04:07 PM   #12 
  - The U.S. doesn't need a 3rd party, it needs a 2nd party to...  SteveM   Dec-07-10 06:24 PM   #17 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC