[EL] FW: An Electoral College Tie?
Thomas J. Cares
Tom at TomCares.com
Fri Dec 16 06:26:57 PST 2011
To quickly respond to Jim: What kind of fictitious majority does the
Electoral College ensure?
In 1992, 49 states had no majority winner. In 2000, the EC produced a
national plurality loser (let alone a majority winner).
You could just as meaningfully guarantee a majority winner by dividing
a basin in half for the top two candidates, and dropping an odd number
of jelly beans over it.
Thomas Cares
Sent from my iPad
On 12/16/11, JBoppjr at aol.com <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
> Re Rob's comment about my post, every Presidential candidate for all time
> has and will have limited resources so they will decide to go some places,
> but not others. That does not make the "other" places irrelevant -- their
> votes still matter and count. So this "problem" is not fixed by the NPV, it
> just changes where candidates might go. It seems obvious to me that they
> will go to the major population centers under NPV, not small states. I
> acknowledge that liberals are likely to see this as an improvement --
> greater
> influence of large liberal population centers -- but I don't.
>
> But the biggest (nonpartisan) problem with NPV is that it allows the
> election to be decided by a plurality, not a majority. The Constitution
> requires a majority -- either of the Electoral College or the House -- while
> the
> barest plurality is enough under NPV. This has, in my view, profound
> destablizing effects and would ultimately undermine the legitimacy of our
> federal
> government. Jim Bopp
>
>
> In a message dated 12/16/2011 12:06:23 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> rr at fairvote.org writes:
>
> So, just so I have this straight:
>
>
> * Jim Bopp thinks that having more voters matter only is of interest to
> self-interested consultants. To him it's irrelevant that Barack Obama can
> run
> for re-election without his campaign having to worry for a second about the
> views of voters in the ten smallest states (e.g, he has no primary
> challenge, and none of the ten smallest states is on anyone's 2012
> battleground
> list - they won't matter to the Republican nominee come this fall either).
> Apparently the power to hold one's elected representatives accountable is a
> kind of distraction from the main purpose, which is the magic of swing
> states being able to elect better presidents than the nation could as a
> whole.
>
>
> * Tara Ross believes that the Electoral College caused the differences
> between the North and South to "melt away." Never mind that, due to deals
> over
> electors, Rutherford Hayes in 1877 cravenly entered a corrupt deal that
> effectively ended Reconstruction, leading to Jim Crow laws and Democratic
> one-party dominance of the South for nearly a century. Never mind that with
> the winner-take-all rule, there is absolutely no incentive to compete in
> states you can't win, as opposed to a national popular vote where there's an
>
> incentive to compete everywhere you can win votes.
>
>
> * Tara thinks that the Electoral College is key to maintaining the
> two;party system, perhaps having missed the significance of Duverger's Law
> and the
> lack of rampant multi-partism in all the states that hold their elections
> without an Electoral College system.
>
>
> Sorry if a bit snippy - I'll ascribe it to watching two hours of the
> presidential debate tonight.
> Rob
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Tara Ross <_tara at taraross.com_
> (mailto:tara at taraross.com) > wrote:
>
>
>
> But a Democrat in the late 1800s has a significantly harder time getting
> the vote of a northerner v. a southerner. That Democrat is much more
> productive and efficient if he simply seeks to drive up voter turnout in the
>
> South. Why bend over backwards to get the vote of someone outside your base
> when you can simply promise more to voters who are naturally inclined to
> like
> you? It is much easier to promise anything and everything to your natural
> base so they will come out in droves on election day. High voter turnout
> among your base, not coalition-building, wins this type of election.
> I should also note, by way of background, that I never assume that the
> two-party system will remain stable without the Electoral College. A
> multi-party system is less conducive to coalition-building as a general
> matter; it
> instead tends to fracture voters across parties.
>
>
> From: Samuel Bagenstos [mailto:_sbagen at gmail.com_
> (mailto:sbagen at gmail.com) ]
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 9:41 PM
> To: Tara Ross
> Cc: _rr at fairvote.org_ (mailto:rr at fairvote.org) ; _BSmith at law.capital.edu_
> (mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu) ; _JBoppjr at aol.com_ (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com)
> ; _law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
> (mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
>
> Subject: Re: [EL] FW: An Electoral College Tie?
>
>
> This is not my issue, but I don't see how you can credit the Electoral
> College, as opposed to a popular-vote alternative, for encouraging the
> post-Civil-War division between North and South to melt away. Sure,
> Democrats had
> to reach out to northerners, but they would have needed to do so under a
> popular-vote plan, too. Indeed, one might argue that they would have had
> to do so sooner, because each person's vote in the cities of the North
> would
> have counted as much as each person's vote in the rural South, but this
> isn't my area. Whatever the electoral system, if a party finds itself
> persistently losing elections, it will eventually decide it has to reach
> beyond
> its then-current base. I don't see how this is a unique feature of the
> Electoral College.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Samuel R. Bagenstos
>
> Professor of Law
>
> University of Michigan Law School
>
> 625 S. State St.
>
> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>
> _sambagen at umich.edu_ (mailto:sambagen at umich.edu)
>
> _http://web.law.umich.edu/_FacultyBioPage/facultybiopagenew.asp?ID=411_
> (http://web.law.umich.edu/_FacultyBioPage/facultybiopagenew.asp?ID=411)
>
> _http://disabilitylaw.blogspot.com/_ (http://disabilitylaw.blogspot.com/)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 15, 2011, at 10:21 PM, Tara Ross wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Yes, elections are about selecting the best President, not about making
> sure every citizen sees every presidential candidate exactly the same
> number
> of times as his fellow citizens. But assuming, arguendo, that such stats
> do matter, the “swing state” situation is not nearly as dire as Rob
> suggests. We are in a moment in time when this particular division between
> red
> and blue states—blue coasts/red flyover states—seems impossible to change.
> But I would suggest that the north/south division between red and blue
> states must have seemed similarly unalterable in the late 1800s. In the
> end, of
> course, it did change. And I would argue that the Electoral College
> actually encouraged this division between north and south to melt away.
> Democrats couldn’t win without reaching out to northerners; Republicans
> were
> cutting it close if they relied only on safe states; thus, they reached out
> to
> southerners. Eventually, the same dynamics should work to erase the
> seemingly stubborn division between red and blue today.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: _law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_
> (mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu)
> _[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu]_
> (mailto:[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu]) On Behalf
> Of_JBoppjr at aol.com_ (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com)
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 6:59 PM
> To: _rr at fairvote.org_ (mailto:rr at fairvote.org) ; _BSmith at law.capital.edu_
> (mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu)
> Cc: _law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
> (mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
> Subject: Re: [EL] An Electoral College Tie?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Unless you are a political consultant looking for work in a particular
> state, why would you care that "Those small states collectively received a
> grand total of one campaign visit from a major party candidate for
> president
> and vice-president in the final two months of the 2008 campaign."
> Presidential elections are not about where candidates campaign but about
> electing
> the best President. But since many of the supporters of NPV, especially on
> the Republican side, are political consultants paid by NPV, they find this
> argument persuasive. I find it irrelevant. Jim Bopp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 12/15/2011 5:49:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> _rr at fairvote.org_ (mailto:rr at fairvote.org) writes:
>
>
>
> Brad,
>
>
>
>
>
> A lot of NPV advocates believe the candidate with fewer votes shouldn't
> beat someone with more votes, but see the more pressing problem to be the
> grotesque distortion of candidate behavior and White House policy focus
> that
> is created by the current Electoral College rules.
>
> There's compelling evidence of a deadly combination: a shrinking of the
> number of swing states and the hardening of the definition of what is a
> swing
> state. Some folks questioned FairVote's 2008 analysis concluding that the
> number of swing states going into 2012 was going to be smaller than ever,
> but I trust no one is questioning it now. We were right -- analysts like
> Larry Sabato now talk about fewer than 10 swing states likely to determine
> the
> 2012 election, just as we explained after the 2008 results came in.
>
> You can take it to the bank right now that this will have an impact on
> turnout in swing states versus others Furthermore, if the Obama campaign
> acts
> like the Bush re-election campaign in 2004 - and all indications are that
> they will -- then they won't waste a dime on polling a single person living
> outside of the swing states. Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd said the
> campaign didn't poll anyone outside a potential battleground for the final
> 30 months of the 2004 campaign, which of course influenced a lot of what
> the campaign did in policy proposals at the same time the president was
> tasked with governing the nation as a whole.
>
>
> This dynamic unavoidably has a policy impact. Perhaps the most revealing
> insight into distortions created by the current rules came from candid
> remarks from former U.S. Senator Arlen Specter this fall. Specter
> represented
> Pennsylvania in the U.S. Senate for three decades, and he saw a lot of
> presidents come and go - -and come and go .....and come and go.... as he
> represented a big swing state. Check out this blogpost by my colleague
> Katie Kelly
> reporting on what Specter said, with some sample quotes from Specter:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _http://www.fairvote.org/arlen-specter-extra-money-for-swing-state-status_
> (http://www.fairvote.org/arlen-specter-extra-money-for-swing-state-status#.Tu
> p3UTVAaRg)
>
>
>
>
> “I think it’d be very bad for Pennsylvania because we wouldn’t attract
> attention from Washington on important funding projects for the state. We
> are trying to get more funding now for the deepening of the port [of
> Philadelphia]. When I was on the Appropriations Committee, we got $77
> million over
> the years …We are trying to get the president to do more."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> “Under the current electoral system, [President] Obama has good reason to
> give us the money to carry Pennsylvania. Because presidents think that way,
> it affects their decisions. … In 2004, when I ran with [President George
> W.] Bush, he … came to Pennsylvania 44 times, and he was looking for items
> the state needed to help him win the state. … It’s undesirable to change
> the system so presidents won’t be asking us always for what we need, what
> they can do for us.”
>
>
>
>
>
> I find it hard to believe the founding fathers, if suddenly in our midst,
> would accept keeping rules that make a Pennsylvania citizen so much more
> important than a citizen in our ten smallest states. Those small states
> collectively received a grand total of one campaign visit from a major
> party
> candidate for president and vice-president in the final two months of the
> 2008 campaign. Just as striking, the single swing state of Ohio had far
> more
> campaign events in the final two months of the campaign then _combined__
> number of events in the smallest 25 states.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Unlike many folks today, the founders were not afraid of change. They
> weren't afraid of fixing things that didn't work. They certainly weren't
> afraid
> of fixing the first version of the Electoral College, with the failures of
> 1796 and 1800 leading to the 12th amendment. Rather than accept the
> consequences of the winner-take-all rule, I'm sure they would want to do
> something about it. Based on what James Madison thought about presidential
> elections, I believe they'd back a national popular vote.
>
>
>
>
> Of course they're not around, so it's up to us. But certainly a lot of us
> think there's a very strong case to be made against the status quo --
> certainly one that we can base in facts, while I see nearly all opposition
> arguments being grounded in sentiment and fear.
>
>
>
> Rob
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Smith, Brad <_BSmith at law.capital.edu_
> (mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu) > wrote:
>
>
>
> I think that Richard’s comment actually gets at a key point that
> undermines much of the case for NPV. There are many arguments for NPV, but
> the key
> one is that direct popular vote is either the only or at least the most
> legitimate way to select the president. Every poll shows that substantial
> majorities agree.
>
>
>
> Yet oddly enough, nobody really much cares that we routinely elect
> executives without popular majorities. And despite the fact that many
> leading
> proponents of NPV say we should use popular vote because “the president
> should
> be chosen by a majority of our citizens” (Birch Bayh, in Kaza et al. Every
> Vote Equal, at xxii), or because “majority rule [is] a fundamental tenant
> of our democracy (John Anderson, Kaza et al at xviii) in fact, as Richard p
> oints out, NPV doesn’t do what Senator Birch says he wants and what Rep.
> Anderson says is “fundamental.”
>
>
>
> Those of us who understand elections also understand that there are
> numerous ways to hold elections, and we know that huge numbers of elections
> are
> held in both private and public organizations that violate the majority
> rules concept – or even the plurality rules. Moreover, we know that voting
> procedures frequently place limits on majority opinion, the most obvious
> perhaps being super-majority requirements.
>
>
>
> I don’t see any reason why having a president who did not receive a
> national plurality (let alone a national majority) is more inherently more
>
> disturbing than having a House or a Senate whose majority did not receive a
> majority or even a plurality of votes, or a speaker of the House or Leader
> of
> the Senate who was elected by members representing less than a majority or
> even a plurality.
>
>
>
> And there seems to be little reason to believe that the American people
> are particularly worked up about it either. Richard points out that we
> routinely elect executives who had more people vote against than for them –
> sometimes by quite substantial margins. Yet they do not face a crisis of
> legitimacy.
>
>
>
> In my observation, despite what they say when a single, out of context
> question is posed to them in a poll, people are much more attuned to
> following what seem to be reasonably fair, agreed upon rules in advance,
> rather
> than insisting that only one rule (majority or plurality rule) can ever be
> fair; majorities quite routinely accede to the desires of minorities;
> voting
> systems are quite routinely established to deny majority – let alone
> plurality – victory. By the same token, people are happy, in many cases, to
> accept
> plurality winners – so much so that Messrs. Bayh, Anderson, and others
> toss around the term “majority” when they appear to mean “plurality”
> without
> even thinking much about it.
>
>
>
> If we are to believe many NPV supporters, there should have been a
> national uproar after the 2000 election. Well, to some extent there was –
> but it
> was not over the electoral college. At all times very substantial
> majorities seemed quite content with the knowledge that the Florida winner
> would
> claim the presidency. Efforts to abolish or change the electoral college –
> including NPV – remained the hobby horses of a small number of
> well-financed
> good-government groupies, not any kind of mass movement.
>
>
>
> In short, we live in a country that is clearly dedicated to popular rule,
> but within the rule of law, and with popular not always – in fact perhaps
> surprisingly rarely – defined as majority or even plurality vote at any
> given moment.
>
>
>
> As a result, NPV proponents seem to constantly assuming what they ought to
> be proving – that NPV actually would result in better governance, or truly
> is more “fair” – once we define fair, and get beyond the facile
> proclamations such as those found in the movement’s magnum opus, Every Vote
> Equal.
> Here, I think that the case that has been made for effectively abolishing
> the electoral college is exceedingly weak, based more on horror stories of
> improbable counterfactual scenarios and presumed but not particularly
> probable reactions of the public to those scenarios.
>
>
>
> Conversely, those who would defend the Electoral College need not defend
> the process for choosing a president in the House of Representatives,
> though
> I believe it can be defended – rather, they need to defend the Electoral
> College system as a whole against NPV, because it is the Electoral College
> that NPV seeks to effectively abolish, not just the House of
> Representatives
> contingency. That’s not that hard, if only because NPV supporters have
> done so little to show that NPV would result in better presidents or better
> government.
>
>
>
> Bradley A. Smith
>
> Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
>
> Designated Professor of Law
>
> Capital University Law School
>
> 303 East Broad Street
>
> Columbus, OH 43215
>
> _(614) 236-6317_ (tel:(614)%20236-6317)
>
> _bsmith at law.capital.edu_ (mailto:bsmith at law.capital.edu)
>
> _http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp_
> (http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp)
>
>
>
> From: _law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_
> (mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu)
> [mailto:_law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_
> (mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu) ] On
> Behalf OfRichard Winger
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 2:26 PM
> To: _law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
> (mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu) ; MarkScarberry
>
>
>
>
> Subject: Re: [EL] An Electoral College Tie?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't believe we should be so frightened of the idea that a winning
> presidential candidate might have received only 40% of the total popular
> vote.
> 45 of the 50 states elect their Governors like that. Whoever gets the
> most votes wins, period. Louisiana, Washington, California and Georgia
> force
> a majority vote by having a round with only two candidates on the ballot,
> and Vermont lets the legislature choose when no one gets a majority for
> Governor. In the other 45 states, a winning gubernatorial candidate just
> needs more votes than anyone else.
>
> The lowest share of the popular vote any winning gubernatorial candidate
> ever got in the last 170 years was in Washington state in 1912, when the
> Democratic nominee, Ernest Lister, won with only 30.6% of the popular vote.
>
> In that election, the Republican nominee got 30.4% and the Progressive
> nominee got 24.4%.
>
> Richard Winger
> _415-922-9779_ (tel:415-922-9779)
> PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>
> --- On Thu, 12/15/11, Scarberry, Mark <_Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu_
> (mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu) > wrote:
>
> From: Scarberry, Mark <_Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu_
> (mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu) >
> Subject: Re: [EL] An Electoral College Tie?
> To: "_law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
> (mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu) "
> <_law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
> (mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu) >
> Date: Thursday, December 15, 2011, 11:02 AM
>
>
>
> In such a case, would we really want the national plurality vote winner
> (perhaps with 40% of the vote) to become President?
> Perhaps if no candidate receives a majority of the electoral vote then,
> instead of the current system or the national popular vote system, there
> should be a choice of the President either by a joint session of Congress
> or
> by vote of the House (with each member having one vote).
> Of course that would require a constitutional amendment, but in my view
> it would also take a constitutional amendment to move to a popular vote
> system, at least to one that has a blackout period like the proposed NPVIC.
> Mark
>
> Mark S. Scarberry
> Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
> Malibu, CA 90263
> _(310)506-4667_ (tel:(310)506-4667)
>
>
> From: _law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_
> (mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu)
> [mailto:_law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_
> (mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu) ] On
> Behalf Of Justin Levitt
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 10:23 AM
> To: _law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
> (mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
> Subject: Re: [EL] An Electoral College Tie?
>
> It's not just a tie that could send the election to the House of
> Representatives ... I believe it's any lack of a majority. If, for
> example, the
> Americans Elect candidate wins enough electoral votes to deprive either the
>
> Republican nominee or the Democratic nominee of an Electoral College
> majority, the House decides the election.
>
> Justin
> --
> Justin Levitt
> Associate Professor of Law
> Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
> 919 Albany St.
> Los Angeles, CA 90015
> _213-736-7417_ (tel:213-736-7417)
> _justin.levitt at lls.edu_ (http://mc/compose?to=justin.levitt@lls.edu)
> _ssrn.com/author=698321_ (http://ssrn.com/author=698321)
>
>
> On 12/15/2011 9:37 AM, Dan Johnson wrote:
>
> I'd love to see opponents of the National Popular Vote mount a robust
> defense of the House of Representatives in a one-vote-per-state-delegation
> selecting the President (the result of a not-implausible tie in electoral
> votes).
>
>
>
> Because, after all, that is what they are defending. A tie will eventually
> occur. Let us hope that the National Popular Vote compact is established
> and confirmed by the Supreme Court before that mathematical certainty rears
> its ugly head.
>
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Rick Hasen <_rhasen at law.uci.edu_
> (http://mc/compose?to=rhasen@law.uci.edu) > wrote:
>
>
> _“An Electoral College Tie?”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26579)
>
> Posted on _December 15, 2011 9:18 am_
> (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26579) by _Rick Hasen_
> (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
>
> National Journal _ponders_
> (http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2011/12/an-electoral-college-tie.php) .
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dan Johnson
>
> Partner
>
> Korey Cotter Heater and Richardson, LLC
>
> 111 West Washington, Suite 1920
> Chicago, Illinois 60602
>
> _http://www.kchrlaw.com_ (http://www.kchrlaw.com/)
>
>
> _312.867.5377_ (tel:312.867.5377) (office)
> _312.933.4890_ (tel:312.933.4890) (mobile)
> _312.794.7064_ (tel:312.794.7064) (fax)
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> _Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
> (http://mc/compose?to=Law-election@department-lists.uci.edu)
> _http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election_
> (http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election)
> --
> Justin Levitt
> Associate Professor of Law
> Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
> 919 Albany St.
> Los Angeles, CA 90015
> _213-736-7417_ (tel:213-736-7417)
> _justin.levitt at lls.edu_ (http://mc/compose?to=justin.levitt@lls.edu)
> _ssrn.com/author=698321_ (http://ssrn.com/author=698321)
>
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> _Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
> (http://mc/compose?to=Law-election@department-lists.uci.edu)
> _http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election_
> (http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> _Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
> (mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
> _http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election_
> (http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election)
>
>
>
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
>
> Rob Richie
> Executive Director
>
> FairVote
> 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
> Takoma Park, MD 20912
> _www.fairvote.org _ (http://www.fairvote.org/) _rr at fairvote.org_
> (mailto:rr at fairvote.org)
> _(301) 270-4616_ (tel:(301)%20270-4616)
>
> Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see
> _http://fairvote.org/donate_ (http://fairvote.org/donate) . For federal
> employees, please consider a gift to us through the Combined Federal
> Campaign
> (FairVote's CFC number is 10132.) Thank you!
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> _Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
> (mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
> _http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election_
> (http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> _Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
> (mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
> _http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election_
> (http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
>
> Rob Richie
> Executive Director
>
> FairVote
> 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
> Takoma Park, MD 20912
> _www.fairvote.org _ (http://www.fairvote.org/) _rr at fairvote.org_
> (mailto:rr at fairvote.org)
> (301) 270-4616
>
> Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see
> _http://fairvote.org/donate_ (http://fairvote.org/donate) . For federal
> employees, please consider a gift to us through the Combined Federal
> Campaign
> (FairVote's CFC number is 10132.) Thank you!
>
>
>
>
View list directory