The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.
The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.
We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.
The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.
The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.
No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 56 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.
In the current system, there are 51 separate opportunities for recounts in every presidential election. Recounts would be far less likely in a National Popular Vote system than in the current system. In the United States’ 56 total presidential elections, there have been 5 litigated state counts which were totally unnecessary and an artificial crisis created by the current state-by-state winner-take-all system. Based on U.S. election history, a national popular vote would reduce the probability of a recount to once in 640 years.
You gotta be kidding. Disparate methods of recounting, non-uniform standards, etc. Not to mention that under NPV [in an EXTREMELY close election], even a state that went 99%-1% would LIKELY be REQUIRED to recount since EVERY vote [nationwide] contributed to the selection of the winner.
State Governors are elected by popular vote under the provisions their states’ constitutions. Senators are elected by popular vote under the provisions of the 17th Amendment of the Constitution. In BOTH cases, they are elected ONLY by the citizens of their state[s]. Recounts are mandated ONLY when the statewide vote margin is something like less than 2%.
No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 56 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.
Absolute BULLSHIT. In 2000, there were approximately 105 million votes cast, with a differential of approximately 500,000 between Gore and Bush. Or approximately 1/2 of 1%. There WOULD have been a recount if NPV had been in effect AND it would have occurred in ALL 50 states AND DC.
Quit spouting NONSENSE …