Can the Democrats win the Alabama senate special election in December?

Politics & Elections
1461

You offer no reason to think cheaters would have an easier time with a national election than with a few, or one, key state elections. Rather, the larger the size of the vote pool that must be tampered with, the less likely and less effective tampering is to occur.

See above. Fifty-one jurisdictions, not one, would need to be tampered with.

It’s well beyond that. It’s halfway to being actually implemented.

As it does now. So?

Again, they will have to be effective in 50 states plus DC, not just one.

All of those are existing bugs in the EC system, along with The Big One.

The winner of the popular vote is supposed to be the winner, under the basic principles of democracy followed everywhere in the modern world. How is that cheating?

That’s the problem now (ref. Florida 2000). One state and 500-odd votes would not matter under a democratic system.

Sure, they’ll try, but it’s 51, not “a”. Got any idea what those grounds might be? I’m sure the Compact has been scrutinized by some fine Con Law minds.

That was not just a partisan swipe, but an ungrounded one. Are democrats (small d) less smart? Or just less selfish and fearful and unable to succeed with mere persuasion? Republican states are less likely to voluntarily give up their excess power, sure, but the Democratic states are where the people are. The Compact takes effect when states adding up to a simple majority of electoral votes have enacted it, not when there’s national unanimity.

I don’t see why you’re missing the point that this is a pro-democracy effort.

1462

He won’t do that. He’s 70. You have to be under 70 to run for Alabama Supreme Court.

1463

Why do you think that that will stop him?

1464

I’m thinking that they won’t put him on the ballot.

1465

Even if it’s the Lord’s will?

1466

Sadly for Judge Moore, the Lord does not currently sit on any of the county Boards of Registers.

1467

Yeah, but I’ll bet a lot of them have His self-proclaimed representatives sitting…

1468

It doesn’t matter. It’s black letter law. There’s a maximum age requirement for election to the State Supreme Court. That’s why Moore ran for Senate this year instead of trying to run for Supreme Court judge.

1469

Might be better, but certainly would be far more difficult to achieve–‘tricking up the EC’ via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could be accomplished if as few as four additional states were to adopt it. Whereas ‘making it a true popular vote’ would, of course, require a constitutional amendment. That’s a much tougher slog.

1470

Age or IQ?

1471

I have no idea what your point is. The margin for Florida in 2000, according to Wikipedia, was 537.

Is it your claim that different statistical laws apply in Florida compared with the U.S. as a whole?? Or that some political force repels closeness in the national popular vote???

1472

The same calculation, applied to Florida in 2000, yields a standard deviation of 1221, fwiw.

But yeah, I left out my main point. In our Electoral College system, we really do 51 winner-take-all state elections, then add up the points. So you go into any Presidential election with 51 times as many opportunities for a close call, by whatever measure you choose, than if it was decided by direct popular vote.

In many elections, those potential state-level close calls don’t matter. Many Presidential elections are decided by a margin too great for the flipping of one or two states to matter. OTOH, in 2000, a flipping of any of thirty states would have changed the outcome; there was nothing magical about Florida. In 2004, there were three states where any one of them flipping would have changed the outcome. 33 state-level elections in just those two Presidential elections that had the potential to change the outcome. 33 Presidential elections takes us back to 1888 or forward to 2148.

Obviously, most of those opportunities for a close state vote in a close EV election won’t result in a problem like Florida in 2000. But the same would be true at the national level if we had direct popular vote: there’s no reason to expect a need for a recount more than once every century or two.

1473

Oh my. This is getting to be like “pulling teeth.” :stuck_out_tongue: Which of the other 29 states do you think Gore forgot to seek a recount in? Utah — that’s one of the 29 — which he lost 515,000 to 203,000? Or North Carolina, where he lost by a much narrower margin — 1.63 million to 1.26 million?

If you need a complete analysis, we’ll need correlation coefficients and what Nate Silver calls elasticity. Here’s a fact which might inform you: If Silver’s “elasticity” is everywhere zero (though I am NOT claiming it is), there will be at most one state that decides a given Presidential election.

If you wish to continue this “debate” then PLEASE devote a little more thought to your objections … unless your goal is to get me so irritated I start using diction that will get me BANNED.

1474

The math has already been done in detail. Ironically, the paper that does the math (16 page PDF) is most often cited by proponents of the electoral college, claiming that the increased probability of a razor-thin margin deciding the nation is a good thing.

1475

Which of the other last 29 elections do you think the U.S. would have had a recount in, if we’d done direct popular vote? 1984, when Reagan won by 17M out of 92M votes? 1972, when Nixon won by 18M out of 78M? 1964, when Johnson won by 16M out of 71M? Or 1956, when Ike won by a much narrrower margin - 9.5M out of 62M?

Look, just because some of the opportunities didn’t pan out, doesn’t change the underlying reality: the historical record is that you get way more close popular-vote state elections in close EV national elections, than you get close popular national elections, by whatever yardstick you’re using.

I could only find popular vote tallies from 1824 forward, but only once, in all those elections, did the popular vote have a difference of less than 25 standard deviations: 1880, where Garfield won by 5.975 standard deviations.

In 2000 alone, we had two states - Florida and New Mexico - where the difference was less than one standard deviation.

That’s what comes of having 51 times as many chances to be close, however you want to define ‘close.’

Dude, I don’t care enough about you to try to get you banned.

(Hell, there’s only a few people here whose presence here actually bothers me, and the ‘ignore’ function is more than adequate for them. As evidenced by the fact that we’re having a two-way discussion, you’re not one of them. Not remotely close.)

1476

I think part of the argument there is that there not being a federal vote tallying system, but rather 51 of them (for now), you still have to depend on how reliable is each of those 51 tallies. But that hits us under either system, only in different ways.

1477

Or, perhaps it would be better to start a new thread on this subject?

1478

It’s true that switching to a nationwide popular vote would make recounts rarer, but it would also make them more costly when they happen. And I don’t just mean the cost of counting the votes again, I mean the costs of political and legal and systemic distrust.

Even if one state needed a recount in every presidential election, there are decent odds that that state that’s close isn’t decisive, so it doesn’t even matter much. When it does matter, like Florida in 2000, then the stakes are high, but the focus is also narrow. In a national popular vote, every vote in the country is potentially decisive. Every state is going to have the kind of legal battle Florida had in 2000, probably with a bunch of lawsuits that reasonably could end up at the Supreme Court. Whichever state on either side of the partisan line has the laxest or most-easily-blown-out-of-proportion process for recounting is going to be held up as proof that the election is being stolen.

And those all recounts have to be resolved pretty quickly, because if we don’t have a solid answer after about 2 months, we’re bordering on Constitutional Crisis.

It’s not clear to me that decreasing the frequency and increasing the severity of a very close election is a tradeoff we should make.

1479

OK, but we’re talking about a once-in-two-centuries crisis, versus a twice-in-16-years event. Because up until 2000, a great deal of the EC’s legitimacy was that it had ratified the results of the popular vote, while adding some clarity to the outcome. In the past five elections, it’s failed to do the former twice, and failed the clarity test impressively in 2000 of course. We’re already on the verge of a state of political and legal and systemic distrust. (Not to mention these failures resulted in two of the worst Presidents since the antebellum era. Twice is still just coincidence, but still.)

1480

In addition to coming within 100,000 votes of not matching the popular vote in 2004 had Ohio flipped.