Skip to main content

View Diary: Stop saying Republican electoral-vote rigging is constitutional. It's not. Here's why. (193 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Wouldn't the opposite be true? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shockwave, caryltoo

    For example, Bush won in 2000 by contesting a ~500-vote margin in Florida. Nationally, he'd have had to overcome a 500,000 vote deficit. Tough to do with a small number of recount/challenges.

    •  True but it expands the 'playing feild' if u have (0+ / 0-)

      the $.  Just look for claims of voter fraud everywhere and contest everywhere.  Thugs have 1/2 of their rubes thinking BO stole an election he won by almost 5 m votes.  U don't think they could gin up 'bagger 'riots' claiming the next stole his 1/2 m win?

      Also, think of what kind of recount a nat'l pop. vote would entail.  Do we do auto recounts if the margin is less than 1/2%?  That means 2000 would have been an auto national recount.  What kind of opportunities for mischeif would that create?  Flip 50k votes 5 states and you change the winner (since its a net change of 100K per state).

      And on the NPV compact: would all the signatories abide by it if the party who won their state was also the party in change in the state but not the won who won the p/v... if the election were that close and their party (i.e., Faux/Limbaugh) was screaming 'fraud!'  I have my doubts.

      I think the moral of that anyway is: if we federalize the election (which is what a nat'l popular vote is) then we federalize everything about the election, from registration to ballot form to machine type, locations, #s etc., all the way to recounts and who does it and who selects them.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site