In my opinion, the electoral college is a wise protection, needed now more than ever.

Report comment to moderator

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 recounts was a mere 274 votes.

Senator Birch Bayh (D–Indiana) 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.”

In Illinois in the 1960s, accusation of vote fraud by both political parties were commonplace. In 1960, a switch of 4,430 votes in Illinois and a switch 4,782 votes in South Carolina would have given Nixon a majority of the electoral votes. However, 4,430 votes in Illinois were only a focus of controversy in 1960 because of the statewide winner-take-all rule. John F. Kennedy led Richard M. Nixon by 118,574 popular votes nationwide, so 4,430 votes were not decisive in terms of the national vote count. Of course, if Nixon had carried Illinois and a state such as South Carolina in 1960, Nixon would have won a majority of the votes in the Electoral College, despite not receiving a majority of the popular votes nationwide.

Report comment to moderator

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware –75%, Maine — 77%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 74% , Massachusetts — 73%, New York — 79%, and Washington — 77%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes — 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

Report comment to moderator

Why would anyone be against photo ID for voting?

What other reason is there except voter fraud to be against photo ID for voting?

My conclusion is that Democrats want to be able to, in those immortal words,

“Vote early, vote often!”

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

indeed you are by reading correct: Diebold did not directly threaten to throw the election.

There is the issue, however, that Diebold has been very secretive about their machine, and it appears that there are indeed security flaws in the machines:

http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/

raising the potential that should Diebold choose to, they have the means to throw an election.

It strikes me that it is perhaps an appearance of impropriety for a company deeply involved in the hardware for the electoral process to also be highly partisan: it allows such observations to be supported by the circumstantial facts.

Report comment to moderator

That’s NOT what that article says. It says he chose to donate and host fundraisers, not steal votes with the machines:

O’Dell [former CEO] ….took heat in 2003 when he invited people to a fundraiser for President Bush with a letter stating he planned to help “Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president.”
Swidarski [current CEO] donated $2,000 to the Bush re-election campaign in 2003 but says he has no political connections now. Diebold now bars its top executives from making political contributions.
“He made that donation as a personal decision. A lot of other Diebold execs made a similar decision when Wally O’Dell was an active fundraiser,”…

You’re passing your own interpretation off as fact and it’s not very accurate.

Report comment to moderator

you mean like the conservatives seem to be stuck on voter fraud and acorn (c.f. this discussion group and Hoffman pronouncements)?

Voter fraud does occur. Unjustified disenfranchisement also does occur. As I noted, the question is how much does this actually impact the election.

And to make these charges without evidence, such as conservatives clearly did in the Hoffman election in NY 23rd, servers only to unjustifiably impugn the integrity of the electoral process as a whole.

Report comment to moderator

I had no idea the Leftist Democrats were so stuck on it. Now I understand.

Report comment to moderator

XLNT!

Report comment to moderator