Margin Between Obama and Romney was Less than 5% in Only Four States

This article about the final official presidential election returns does not have much new material in it, but it is interesting for pointing out that only four states had a presidential vote margin between the two major party nominees last year that was less than 5%. They were Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia.

Pennsylvania still hasn’t released its write-in results but says it will do so. Vermont write-ins will only be known if any person goes to Montpelier and looks at the returns sent in by each of the towns. The Vermont Elections Director says she will then put the write-in totals on official stationery and the books that publish the national vote totals will accept that. One would think at least one person who wants to enhance the vote totals of Jill Stein, or Virgil Goode, or Stewart Alexander (three presidential candidates who definitely had supporters in Vermont) would take advantage of this opportunity. The Liberty Union Party nominated Alexander for President but he was kept off the ballot anyway because the new deadline law required ballot-qualified minor parties that nominate by convention to certify their presidential nominee by mid-June, whereas qualified parties that nominate by primary were permitted to do that as late as September.


Margin Between Obama and Romney was Less than 5% in Only Four States — 5 Comments

  1. Yes, they could. I don’t know why they haven’t. It is possible they have and I just don’t know about it. If anyone reading this has contacts in Vermont minor parties, please contact them. Thank you.

  2. The EVIL 3 gerrymander systems in the EVIL U.S.A. regime –

    1. H. Reps.
    2. Senate
    3. Electoral College – Prez/VP – especially the 4 States in the story — with the suffering voters in them getting zillions of TV attack ads since 2000.

    How many TV clickers going off and on during the ads ???

    Result — the pending Civil WAR II between leftwing statists and rightwing statists.

    Who can get the most LOOT from LOOTING the income and assets of OTHER folks via govt LOOTER laws ???
    P.R. and nonpartisan App.V. — before it is too late.

  3. Thanks.

    This is only anecdotal evidence of course, but worth keeping in mind when opponents of NPV wail about “nationwide” recounts in close elections.

    1) NPV does NOT require a nationwide recount under any circumstances. That is a lie.
    2) Recounts would occur only in states where the margins are close enough to trigger recount processes, as dictated by their own laws (unless of course the USSC decides it needs to determine by fiat the outcome of another presidential election).
    3) And as Richard has said as recently as a few weeks ago, (I’m paraphrasing) “What’s wrong with recounts?”

  4. #4 Barry,

    1) NPV does not PROVIDE for a procedure by which a recount could be held in a close election such as 1880. This is a bug, not a feature.

    2) The purpose of a recount is to make a more definitive judgment of the results of a close election. Let me rephrase your statement: “recounts would only occur in states where a mindless and moronic adherence to rote procedural-ism would trigger recount processes, as dictated by laws that were inconsistent and contrary to their stated purpose.”

    3) Recount procedures should be defined well in advance of an election. The NPV scheme would likely result in Congress (attempting to) enact ad hoc recount procedures in a lame duck session, similar to what happened in 1876.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *