By Luther Weeks on April 25, 2013
We are getting the annual emails requesting that voters encourage the Connecticut General Assembly to join only eight other states and the District of Columbia that have signed on to the National Popular Vote Agreement/Compact since 2007. There are many reasons to the like the concept of one person one vote, however, there are strong reasons to require that the current system be corrected first, in order that we actually have a fair, credible, and accurate process. Without a trusted, equal, auditable, recountable uniform national election system for President, it is not worth the risks. The devil is truly in the details.
Posted in Legislature2013, National Popular Vote
By Luther Weeks on April 13, 2013
As promised, comments on earlier bills passed through the Government Administration and Elections Committee.
Posted in Internet Voting, Legislature2013, Mail/Absentee Voting, National Popular Vote, Post-Election Audits
By Luther Weeks on March 21, 2013
On Wednesday night I participated on a panel in Waterford, CT on Electoral Dysfunction, sponsored by the ACLU, Common Cause and the LWV. It was a very good discussion with a variety of views from the panel, a wide range of excellent questions, and unsurpassed moderation. In the near future we may have video available. I promised to provide more information here on the topics covered.
Posted in CT Law, Instant Runoff Voting, Legislature2013, National Popular Vote, Post-Election Audits
By Luther Weeks on February 27, 2013
Monday I testified on three bills, primarily the National Popular Vote Compact. Although I oppose the bill, and have since 2007, I actually favor the popular election of the President. Yet, we have a mismatch between our current state-by-state election system which not a match for the demands of a national popular vote that is fair and one we can trust. Like Europe before the Euro, we have a lot of work to do and details to attend to before we could make the change.
Posted in National, National Popular Vote
By Luther Weeks on January 22, 2013
Our Op-Ed published yesterday by CTNewsJunkie, outlining the integrity risks of the National Popular Vote Compact, now being considered by the Connecticut Legislature, for the fourth time since 2007.
Posted in CT, Legislature2013, National, National Popular Vote, Our Editorials
By Luther Weeks on October 25, 2012
The Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project has released a thorough, comprehensive, and insightful new report timed to the 2012 election. We find little to quibble with in the report. We agree with all of its recommendations.Several items with which we fully endorse were covered in this report which sometimes are missing from the discussion or often underemphasised.
The report itself is 52 pages, followed by 32 pages of opinions of others, including election officials, advocates, and vendors, some of whom disagree with some aspects of the report. Every page is worth reading. The report is not technical. It covers a wide range of issues, background, and recommendations.
Posted in Electronic Vulnerability, Internet Voting, Mail/Absentee Voting, National, National Popular Vote, Post-Election Audits, Reports
By Luther Weeks on May 8, 2012
Echoing the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the Village Independent Democrats passed a resolution against the National Popular Vote initiative, urging the Governor and Legislature to vote against the initiative.
Posted in National Popular Vote
By Luther Weeks on January 9, 2012
We are glad to see Democrats raising concerns with the National Popular Vote Agreement. Both political sides and those who support or oppose the Agreement create an unending stream of issues supporting their case. Some issues are objective, others are subjective, and others are subjective and speculative. Many issues raised have merit and are worth discussing.
Posted in National Popular Vote
By Luther Weeks on October 12, 2011
Stevens recalls talking to fellow Justice Stephen Breyer about Bush’s suit – and them both agreeing that, “the application was frivolous… To secure a stay, a litigant must show that one is necessary to prevent an … irreparable injury. Bush’s attorneys had failed to make any such showing.”
Posted in National, National Popular Vote
