Tag(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 2   Well Said 2   Valuable 2   View Ratings | Rate It

Promoted to Headline (H3) on 7/17/11:     Permalink
View Article Stats      (9 comments)

National Popular Vote Returns to California

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend
Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan  (2 fans)   -- Page 1 of 1 page(s)

opednews.com

Back in 2006, the National Popular Vote (NPV) Proposal was thoughtfully vetoed in California when its incarnation (as AB 2948) crossed Governor Schwarzenegger's desk. Unfortunately, this legislative wack-a-mole has returned again to the Eureka state, this time in the form of AB 459, now awaiting signing by Governor Jerry Brown. This passage would inch the likely unconstitutional movement ever closer to the 270 electoral votes necessary to activate its bogus plan.

For those who are unaware of the dangers of NPV, essentially it will require pooling of the popular votes for U.S. Presidential candidates, among the states that have enacted the bill, requiring that all of these states collectively cast their electoral votes for the singular popular vote winner of the pool. In other words, the popular vote winner in each individual state will be entirely IGNORED, if the pooled votes' result is not the same.

An early proponent behind the NPV movement was well-known Presidential election "spoiler" John B. Anderson. Anderson is also an outspoken supporter of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), another tabulation method that disregards the "first choices" of voters in favor of an aggregated result. 

Touted as a way to "level the playing field" between the states, NPV supporters use fuzzy math claims in order to reject other more plausible and fair schemes (such as dividing the electors within each state as to their proportion of the different candidate votes) that do not require "winner-take-all" or interstate pooling methodologies. One need only recall the fuzzy math that Hillary Clinton's camp used in attempting to exclude caucus states from the national popular vote in the 2008 Democratic primary, in order to gauge the level of shenanigans that are likely to occur once an enormous block of electoral votes comes into play.

As I (and others) had earlier informed Governor Schwarzenegger "Already, the westernmost states have less of a say in the Presidential elections due to early disclosures of vote totals and polling data from the states in earlier time zones. This bill further reduces the impact or even necessity of Californians in the decision process. Even more dangerously, states that have inadequate or inferior election equipment or auditing processes may adversely influence the vote totals, such that an incorrect popular vote could be used to determine California's electors." All of this is still true with the current version of the bill.

Your help is URGENTLY needed now in informing Governor Brown why AB 459 must NOT become law. The contact information is: Governor Jerry Brown, c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173, Sacramento, CA 95814; Phone: (916) 445-2841; Fax: (916) 558-3160.

Rebecca Mercuri, Ph.D.


 

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Veto National Popular Vote in California

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

http://www.notablesoftware.com

Rebecca Mercuri has been in the forefront of the voting integrity movement since 1989. She provides expert witness services for elections and other forensic computing matters.

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
9 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

clarifying by Tom Johnson on Monday, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:33:03 AM
Response to Clarifying by Rebecca Mercuri on Monday, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:29:30 AM
Re: Response to Clarifying by Tom Johnson on Monday, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:01:27 PM
How are the votes counted? by Mark Adams JD/MBA on Monday, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:14:41 PM
The author does NOT understand how the bill works by S E on Tuesday, Jul 19, 2011 at 9:16:01 AM
How are the votes counted? by Mark Adams JD/MBA on Wednesday, Jul 20, 2011 at 5:36:04 PM
State Processes and Federal Law Apply by S E on Wednesday, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:18:16 PM
Thanks for your enlightening answer to a question that by Mark Adams JD/MBA on Thursday, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:30:30 PM
Could we have NPV with transparent vote counting? by Tom Johnson on Thursday, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:54:06 PM