National Popular Vote

Caltech/MIT: What has changed, what hasn’t, & what needs improvement

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.

Village Independent Democrats’ resolution against National Popular Vote initiative

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.

Some (more) concerns with the National Popular Vote

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.

Justice John Paul Stevens: Bush v. Gore, “frivolous”

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.”

GAE Committee changed title and substance of bill

A “Technical” change to existing statutes becomes a National Popular Vote Agreement.

Courant Op-Ed: Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned of national popular vote risks

We have learned more about voting integrity since the time of Senator Moynihan. It would be even worse than he imagined.

Testimony on eight bills, including the National Popular Vote

Today the Government Administration and Election Committee (GAE) held hearings on a variety of election related bills. We testified against seven bills and lukewarmly for one.

Since 2007, I have been the only person to testify against the National Popular Vote (NPV) Compact in Connecticut. Finally, this year I was not alone. But I remain the only Connecticut citizen to testify against the NPV Compact.

I challenge anyone to a responsible public blog debate on any and all of the issues we raised in our testimony on the National Popular Vote Compact.

Lawmakers Seek To Change Presidential Elections [To make them more risky, reduce confidence]

What often appears simple is not. The Compact being proposed would get around the requirement for a constitutional amendment. It would cobble the popular vote onto a system designed for the Electoral College. Such a system has largely unanticipated, but predictable consequences that are overlooked and glossed over by national organizations supporting the proposition – similar to the situations when we focus on the national debt one week and lowering taxes the next.

Will Gov Patrick assign MA votes to states with touch screens and voter suppression?

Perhaps Governor Patrick will consider the arguments of Democrats like Connecticut Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz who opposes the Agreement and Minneosota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie who objects for the difficulty in counting the popular vote. We are not in principle against a national popular vote, but as a prerequisite we would require sufficient uniform national voting franchise and integrity laws, enforceable and enforced.

On Voting Integrity, Johnny We Hardly Agree With Ye

For the second time in as many weeks, I find myself disagreeing on an election integrity issue with John Nichols of The Nation.