Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
The current system makes fraud less profitable than a popular vote system would.
It only took 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide, to elect the 2nd place national popular vote getter.
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 vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?
Currently, fraud in Chicago could help Dems steal Illinois. LOL!
Under a popular vote system, it could help them steal the Presidency, again.
Again. With the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), we know that as little as 537 votes, all in one state can determine the election.
Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system, there are huge incentives for fraud and mischief, because a small number of people in a battleground state can affect enough popular votes to swing all of that state’s electoral votes.
In 2004, President George W. Bush had a nationwide lead of 3,012,171 popular votes. However, if 59,393 Bush voters in Ohio had shifted to Senator John Kerry in 2004, Kerry would have carried Ohio and thus become President. It would be far easier for potential fraudsters to manufacture 59,393 votes in Ohio than to manufacture 3,012,171 million votes (51 times more votes) nationwide. Moreover, it would be far more difficult to conceal fraud involving 3,012,171 votes.
The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.
Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system, there are huge incentives for fraud and mischief
Yup, we need voter ID.
In the current system, is there any incentive for Dem voter fraud in CA, NY or IL?
What about Republican fraud in Texas, Oklahoma or Utah?
Leave the EC system as it is.
There is HUGE incentive for voter fraud in any swing state.
We have seen as little as 537 votes, all in one state determine the election, despite a nationwide popular vote margin of more than 1,000 times that.
Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
There is HUGE incentive for voter fraud in any swing state.
And now we'll have incentive everywhere.
Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose.
And? How many times has it happened? 4? Somehow the Republic survived.
We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
Yup. Leave the quirk alone.