This Sacramento Bee story says as of November 13, California still has 4,300,000 uncounted ballots.
Comments
California Still Has 4,300,000 Uncounted Ballots — 16 Comments
Amazing how many uncounted there still is. Clinton right now (Nov 13) is up by 600,000 I heard a claim that it could go as high as 1.8 million. I suppose that the third party vote could also increase significantly as well.
How many write-ins in California.
Anybody who believes that getting rid of the EC and replacing it with the popular vote tabulation should re-think their position. Imagine where we would be now or in six weeks if the EC was gone.
Don, I think we would be in fine shape. It’s not different than counting the vote for Governor of North Carolina. Right now the Democrats is 5,000 votes ahead, with more votes left to count. People in North Carolina can cope with that.
In 2000 we didn’t know who was going to be president until the evening of December 12, 2000, and we survived OK.
Don… technically nothing would be any different. Other than Clinton would likely be elected instead (not a bad thing to me). Technically speaking, as of right now, we still don’t actually have a president-elect. The Electoral College still hasn’t voted. They won’t until December, and those votes won’t be tallied until January.
So what’s the difference between awarding pledged electors to a candidate in November (based on loose vote tallies) and waiting until January to count the electoral votes or having a national popular vote that takes a couple weeks to count?
In North Carolina, they had rules in place before the election as to which votes would be counted and when and there is a single official overseeing the process.
California has no statutes that translate marks made on ballots into votes for presidential candidates, and the elector slates that are associated with the parties. Their ballot directed voters to execute an impossible action. If California election statutes were a freeway, there would be signs, “All Traffic Must Exit”, but no exit ramps. Cars would simply drive straight ahead over an uncompleted overpass.
I disagree with those who think popular vote would not become a nightmare. In many voting districts (states, counties, districts), there is a mandatory recount if the margin of victory is below a certain percentage. Would that disappear? No recount? How about a national recount? (Yea sure…) How about lawsuits because 10,000 dead people voted in Illinois? Who sues who?
This is all moot because a change to something other than the EC for the presidential election would require an amendment to the Constitution which requires 38 states to agree to the change. That’s not gonna happen, not in my lifetime, not in my grandchildren’s lifetime.
That said, the Constitution is on the road to being scrapped anyway (e.g. #TEXIT, #CALEXIT, #SECEDE), so it’s really not worth discussing the utility or fairness of the EC, let alone the possibility that it will be tossed out.
Like Don, I’m not in favor of abolishing the Electoral College for a direct popular vote. I think you would trade one problem for another. It would also change the way candidates conduct their campaigns, and the interests of smaller states would be ignored (why campaign in, say, Minnesota, when you can get more votes in New York or California?)
I would favor some reforms, though. I’m bothered by a candidate who gets all of a state’s EVs without getting a majority of votes cast for President in that state. I’d favor a rule that is WTA only if a candidate has an absolute majority, and otherise, the electors are assigned proportionately. I think a system like this would still respect Federalism and be more likely to align the Electoral College with the popular vote.
I’d like TomP’s idea except I would like it broken down to the congressional district. So a combination of how Maine and Nebraska split their votes by district with TomP’s proportional allocation for non absolute majority results. It would result in lots of decimal votes but result in a much fairer result and allow for local grassroots campaigning to matter
The reason States have WTA for electors, is because they can. Initially, many electors were elected from either congressional districts or electoral districts (there were two more electoral districts than congressional districts). In concept, election by the electoral college is similar to election by Congress; except electors had a special task.
But politicians soon started pushing for at-large election of electors AND representatives. But Congress can require election of representatives by district (though it took over a century for this to be fully implemented). There is no such power with regard to presidential electors. They can’t even require electors to be elected.
A better approach would be to greatly expand the electoral college to say 10,000 members, to require election, and to give, time, place, manner authority over their election to Congress.
For example, Congress could require election by Top 2 by district.
This would leave administration of elections with the respective states.
FYI, Brandon: if the congressional district method — like that used in Maine and Nebraska — were used in all states four years ago, Romney would have won the electoral college vote by 274 to Obama’s 264.
Having a final count for the national popular vote isn’t that difficult. Each state certifies its own total the same way they do for any other election, and then add them up.
The real potential wrinkle is things like differences in voting eligibility, and ballot access, etc. Can you really have a single national election when things like whether or not felons can vote, and who’s on the ballot, isn’t uniform nationwide? What if one state lowers the voting age to 16? What about all the differences in early voting and registration deadlines and absentee voting that can affect turnout rates?
I think this is the main practical hurdle the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact– a genuinely clever idea– runs into. There’s no Congressional authority to provide for these things federally. Ultimately, the states would have to enter into a more comprehensive compact to govern a lot of those questions, and those negotiations won’t be easy and might even be impossible to reach rules that all 50 states will agree to. Particularly since, in practice, any changes agreed to for presidential elections would have to then be applied to all elections on the same ballot.
Mark, in addition to those elections, 1960 and 1968 would have been deadlocked. In 1968, Humphrey would have led the EV and Wallace would have almost doubled his EV vote. 1976 would have been a tie between Ford and Carter, 269-269.
How many State officers are elected AT LARGE and the system magically gets the votes counted ???
— regardless of the mysterious folks on this list.
There is either Democracy — MAJORITY RULE — or minority rule — the rule of monarchs and oligarchs.
@ Richard Winger..”In 2000 we didn’t know who was going to be president until the evening of December 12, 2000, and we survived OK.”
Please tell that to the over 3,000 killed at the WTC when Bush ignored warnings, and the over 4,000 killed in Iraq.
Then explain it to their survivors.
Amazing how many uncounted there still is. Clinton right now (Nov 13) is up by 600,000 I heard a claim that it could go as high as 1.8 million. I suppose that the third party vote could also increase significantly as well.
How many write-ins in California.
Anybody who believes that getting rid of the EC and replacing it with the popular vote tabulation should re-think their position. Imagine where we would be now or in six weeks if the EC was gone.
Don, I think we would be in fine shape. It’s not different than counting the vote for Governor of North Carolina. Right now the Democrats is 5,000 votes ahead, with more votes left to count. People in North Carolina can cope with that.
In 2000 we didn’t know who was going to be president until the evening of December 12, 2000, and we survived OK.
Don… technically nothing would be any different. Other than Clinton would likely be elected instead (not a bad thing to me). Technically speaking, as of right now, we still don’t actually have a president-elect. The Electoral College still hasn’t voted. They won’t until December, and those votes won’t be tallied until January.
So what’s the difference between awarding pledged electors to a candidate in November (based on loose vote tallies) and waiting until January to count the electoral votes or having a national popular vote that takes a couple weeks to count?
In North Carolina, they had rules in place before the election as to which votes would be counted and when and there is a single official overseeing the process.
California has no statutes that translate marks made on ballots into votes for presidential candidates, and the elector slates that are associated with the parties. Their ballot directed voters to execute an impossible action. If California election statutes were a freeway, there would be signs, “All Traffic Must Exit”, but no exit ramps. Cars would simply drive straight ahead over an uncompleted overpass.
I disagree with those who think popular vote would not become a nightmare. In many voting districts (states, counties, districts), there is a mandatory recount if the margin of victory is below a certain percentage. Would that disappear? No recount? How about a national recount? (Yea sure…) How about lawsuits because 10,000 dead people voted in Illinois? Who sues who?
This is all moot because a change to something other than the EC for the presidential election would require an amendment to the Constitution which requires 38 states to agree to the change. That’s not gonna happen, not in my lifetime, not in my grandchildren’s lifetime.
That said, the Constitution is on the road to being scrapped anyway (e.g. #TEXIT, #CALEXIT, #SECEDE), so it’s really not worth discussing the utility or fairness of the EC, let alone the possibility that it will be tossed out.
Like Don, I’m not in favor of abolishing the Electoral College for a direct popular vote. I think you would trade one problem for another. It would also change the way candidates conduct their campaigns, and the interests of smaller states would be ignored (why campaign in, say, Minnesota, when you can get more votes in New York or California?)
I would favor some reforms, though. I’m bothered by a candidate who gets all of a state’s EVs without getting a majority of votes cast for President in that state. I’d favor a rule that is WTA only if a candidate has an absolute majority, and otherise, the electors are assigned proportionately. I think a system like this would still respect Federalism and be more likely to align the Electoral College with the popular vote.
I’d like TomP’s idea except I would like it broken down to the congressional district. So a combination of how Maine and Nebraska split their votes by district with TomP’s proportional allocation for non absolute majority results. It would result in lots of decimal votes but result in a much fairer result and allow for local grassroots campaigning to matter
The reason States have WTA for electors, is because they can. Initially, many electors were elected from either congressional districts or electoral districts (there were two more electoral districts than congressional districts). In concept, election by the electoral college is similar to election by Congress; except electors had a special task.
But politicians soon started pushing for at-large election of electors AND representatives. But Congress can require election of representatives by district (though it took over a century for this to be fully implemented). There is no such power with regard to presidential electors. They can’t even require electors to be elected.
A better approach would be to greatly expand the electoral college to say 10,000 members, to require election, and to give, time, place, manner authority over their election to Congress.
For example, Congress could require election by Top 2 by district.
This would leave administration of elections with the respective states.
FYI, Brandon: if the congressional district method — like that used in Maine and Nebraska — were used in all states four years ago, Romney would have won the electoral college vote by 274 to Obama’s 264.
Having a final count for the national popular vote isn’t that difficult. Each state certifies its own total the same way they do for any other election, and then add them up.
The real potential wrinkle is things like differences in voting eligibility, and ballot access, etc. Can you really have a single national election when things like whether or not felons can vote, and who’s on the ballot, isn’t uniform nationwide? What if one state lowers the voting age to 16? What about all the differences in early voting and registration deadlines and absentee voting that can affect turnout rates?
I think this is the main practical hurdle the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact– a genuinely clever idea– runs into. There’s no Congressional authority to provide for these things federally. Ultimately, the states would have to enter into a more comprehensive compact to govern a lot of those questions, and those negotiations won’t be easy and might even be impossible to reach rules that all 50 states will agree to. Particularly since, in practice, any changes agreed to for presidential elections would have to then be applied to all elections on the same ballot.
Mark, in addition to those elections, 1960 and 1968 would have been deadlocked. In 1968, Humphrey would have led the EV and Wallace would have almost doubled his EV vote. 1976 would have been a tie between Ford and Carter, 269-269.
The unprocessed ballot report from California. Not updated since 11-10-16 at 5PM. This seems to be where the 4.3 million number comes from.
http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2016-general/unprocessed-ballots-report.pdf
How many State officers are elected AT LARGE and the system magically gets the votes counted ???
— regardless of the mysterious folks on this list.
There is either Democracy — MAJORITY RULE — or minority rule — the rule of monarchs and oligarchs.
@ Richard Winger..”In 2000 we didn’t know who was going to be president until the evening of December 12, 2000, and we survived OK.”
Please tell that to the over 3,000 killed at the WTC when Bush ignored warnings, and the over 4,000 killed in Iraq.
Then explain it to their survivors.