[EL] National Popular Vote Passes Crucial Milestone

[Rob Richie]

Following up on my message below, I neglected to paste in the URL with poll
results and a chance to see all the data involved in the poll. Those polls
numbers are here: http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php

<http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php>Here's a specific one from
Connecticut in 2009 that directly emphasized that under NPV Connecticut’s
electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote
in all 50 states, not Connecticut, vote.  See the URL, followed by the
write-up.

http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#CT_2009MAY

... .Then, voters asked a second question that emphasized that Connecticut’s
electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote
in all 50 states, not Connecticut, vote. In this second question, 68% of
Connecticut voters favored a national popular vote.

"Do you think it more important that Connecticut’s electoral votes be cast
for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular vote in
Connecticut, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who
receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?"

The results of the second question, by political affiliation, was 74% among
Democrats, 62% among Republicans, and 63% among others. By gender, support
was 75% among women and 59% among men. By age, support was 75% among 18-29
year olds, 57% among 30-45 year olds, 68% among 46-65 year olds, and 70% for
those older than 65.


<http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php>
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Rob Richie <rr at fairvote.org> wrote:

> Hi, Sean
>
> Elections for president are a big deal and I can guarantee that a change to
> a national popular vote will be noticed. Once the National Popular Vote plan
> is enacted, everyone will know about the change who glances at a newspaper,
> listens to a radio, catches news on television or talks to a friend who
> knows anything about politics. The overwhelming number of voters will expect
> an election in which the winner of the national popular vote becomes
> president; the mechanism will be a back story for wonky places like this
> listserv.You and Tara may suggest otherwise, but with all due respect, I
> simply and strongly disagree. It's quite similar  to term limits -- most
> voters rarely know the mechanism that makes term limits work, but they
> understand the concept and see it working without typically grasping that
> the mechanism is based on denying ballot access to term limited incumbents.
>
> Poll numbers have been consistently clear that voters quite rationally
> favor guaranteeing that the winner of the most popular votes in all 50
> states becomes president more than guaranteeing that the winner of their
> state earns that state's electoral votes. It's no surprise: certainly most
> people on the day after an election would prefer to see their candidate
> having been president while losing their state than see their candidate
> losing while winning their state. it's the national outcome that matters to
> people, and polls from a full range of sources consistently find that a
> super-majority of Americans think the candidate who wins the most votes in
> all 50 states should be president. See a great rundown of polls, including
> some specifically asking the question about whether it matters that the
> winner has lost one's state, at this URL.
>
> As to legal challenges, I can't imagine a judge ordering that the
> winner-take-all rule must be used. That would fly in the face of recent
> history -- I sure didn't hear any suggestion in 2008 that a voter in
> Nebraska could have sued the state for awarding an electoral vote to Obama
> because he won one of the state's congressional districts. It also flies in
> the face of the longer arc of history, as the winner-take-all rules isn't
> remotely established in the Constitution and was not the norm for decades.
> That rule's origins are far from noble either, as it it is a product of
> brass-knuckle partisan politics -- e.g., partisans in states wanting to
> favor the candidate or party expected to win that state by the greatest
> extent possible, knowing that other states controlled by partisans favoring
> other candidates/parties were doing the same thing.
>
> That progress to the winner-take-all rule with a lot of tinkering
> underscores another key point that Tara glossed over in her romantic vision
> of the founders in Philadelphia anticipating politics as we've known it
> every since. Most of our founders were quite open to fact-based thinking,
> learning from experience and and adjusting rules to new circumstances --
> which is why they established the Electoral College without any instruction
> to states on what to do, instead punting the decision for states to make
> rather than impose a certain rule on them. It should be no surprise that,
> often under the influence of men who were at the constitutional convention,
> states in the nation's first half-century regularly changed their rules
> allocating electoral laws -- in 1800, for example, only two states used a
> winner-take-all rule based on a popular vote in their state.
>
> That 1800 election is also instructive for making it clear that the
> original rule for the Electoral College -- e.g, electors casting two votes,
> and the candidate with the most votes (if a majority) becoming president,
> and the candidate with the second most votes becoming vice-president -- was
> a failure. So before the 1804 election they changed the Constitution by
> adopting the 12th amendment, hardly being deferential to what was done in
> Philadelphia in 1787.
>
> When we look at the impact of the winner-take-all rule today, the facts are
> clear that most Americans and most states are hurt by that rule, but are in
> bind about how to change it without the National Popular Vote plan-- and I
> think those facts would have been quite convincing as demanding reform if
> presented to those in the founding generation transported into our world.
> Tara again waxes a bit romantically about all states getting their turn as
> swing states, but she's not looking at the numbers. I'll paste in below a
> summary of some key facts from a mini-report on "Not Your  Parents'
> Presidential Elections" we're putting up on the web soon, from our longer
> *Presidential Election Inequality* analysis.
>
> -Rob
>
> *Not Your Parents' Presidential Elections
>
> *
> *Summary: *The number of swing states (generously defined as ones
> projected to be won by 9% or less in a year in which the major parties
> candidates split the national popular vote) has dropped sharply since 1988,
> especially among our nation's largest and smallest states. In 2008, only one
> of the 13 smallest states and only 4 of the 27 smallest states were swing
> states. This trend shows no indication of changing, all trends pointing to
> wider division -- indeed, in 2008 only 3 of the smallest 13 states were
> within even a 15% partisanship disparity. As the other end of the population
> spectrum, among our 11 largest population states today, fewer than half were
> swing states in 2004 and 2008 -- down from 10 out of 11 of these states in
> the 1960 and the 1976 presidential elections and 8 in the 1988 election.
>
> None of the 2008 non-swing states are expected to become swing states in
> 2012, but some 2008 swing states may well move to non-swing state status,
> which would continue a 50-year trend presented below.
>
> *Swing States (within 9%) by # 2008 Electoral Votes (EV's), 1960-2008* *(Number of EVs in State) Y
> *ear >14 9-14 5 to 8 <5 Total * 2008 5 6 3 1 15 2004 4 6 5 1 16 1988 8 4 8
> 6 27 1976 10 6 8 5 29 1960 10 7 8 6 31 *Partisanship Disparity (P), All
> States, 1960-2008 * Y*ear P=<9% 9%< P< 20% P>=20% Notes* 2008 15 19 17 13
> R & 4 D landslide states 2004 16 20 15 10 R & 5 D landslides states 1988 27
> 22 2 1 R & 1 D landslide states 1976 29 14 8 5 R & 3 D landslides states
> 1960 31 13 6 2 R & 4 D landslide states ** Includes DC in all years except
> 1960 *
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Sean Parnell <sparnell at campaignfreedom.org
> > wrote:
>
>> Others (notably Tara) have far more insight than I on this issue, but I’d
>> just like to offer a few quick reactions to Rob.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.       Rob and I clearly have different views of the lengths
>> politicians will go to in order to achieve favored outcomes. After
>> witnessing the shenanigans in Massachusetts over how to fill empty U.S.
>> Senate seats and watching in ’02 how then-former Senator Frank Lautenberg
>> made it onto the ballot after then-Senator Toricelli elected not to run at a
>> very late date, I have little faith that there won’t be at least an attempt
>> to game NPV.
>>
>> 2.       Which brings up another point – it doesn’t need to be the state
>> legislature the opts out of NPV. A judge could rule the state’s decision to
>> enter NPV wasn’t proper and strike down the law authorizing it. ‘Reformers’
>> routinely claim that our judicial system is corrupt, bought by campaign
>> donors or ‘special interests’ (witness the smear against Clarence Thomas by
>> Common Cause and ThinkProgress) – now they’re going to pledge themselves to
>> the idea that the Texas State Supreme Court isn’t going to jump in and
>> decide that Texans voted 2:1 for a Republican, and that’s where their
>> electoral votes should go?
>>
>> 3.       I think Rob overstates the degree to which the public cares
>> about and supports NPV. I’ve no doubt it polls well, as does “good jobs at
>> good wages” legislation and “healthy families in safe communities”
>> legislation. But I doubt that too many people will be aware of or notice if
>> NPV achieves the magic 270-vote level. I’m pretty confident that hardcore
>> partisans almost certainly will notice, however, if late in the campaign
>> cycle they discover that their state is looking to go 3:2 for their
>> candidate but their electoral votes may go the other way and put the
>> candidate they loathe in the White House.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Sean Parnell
>>
>> President
>>
>> Center for Competitive Politics
>>
>> http://www.campaignfreedom.org
>>
>> http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp
>>
>> 124 S. West Street, #201
>>
>> Alexandria, VA  22310
>>
>> (703) 894-6800 phone
>>
>> (703) 894-6813 direct
>>
>> (703) 894-6811 fax
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
>> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Rob Richie
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 08, 2011 7:06 PM
>>
>> *To:* law-election at uci.edu
>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] National Popular Vote Passes Crucial Milestone
>>
>>
>>
>> These questions provide a good opportunity to plug an excellent resource:
>> Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National
>> Popular Vote. I'm included as a co-author, but lead author John Koza
>> deserves all the credit.
>>
>> The book is available online for free at www.everyvoteequal.com, It's
>> well-organized, with a detailed index and table of contents to help find
>> what you're looking for. Chapter 10 walks through a number of questions
>> about national popular vote, including Mark's one relating to withdrawal.
>>
>>
>>
>> My experience has been that opponents often resort to a "parade of
>> horrors" that essentially amount to throwing a lot of mud in the hope that
>> it sticks. I hasten to say that it's certainly not true that mudslinging is
>> the only way to oppose the National Popular Vote plan -- there are
>> legitimate questions to address. But so often the answer turns out to be
>> that a national popular vote is equal or superior to the status quo -- this
>> relates to concerns about recounts, the impact of third party candidates,
>> the potential impact of voter fraud and much else.
>>
>>
>>
>> It also applies to the issue of withdrawal that Mark has raised. While the
>> blackout provision may well be litigated, NPV proponents have a strong case
>> to make. But let's suppose a worst-cast scenario where it were struck down
>> and courts ruled that a state cannot be bound by the blackout provision.
>> Then let's enter the real world of politics as it is in America and how
>> Sean's theoretical constitutional crisis might unfold. (Speaking of "equal
>> or superior".... I think we all were around in 2000.)
>>
>>
>>
>> First, keep in mind that the National Popular Vote plan's national
>> enactment will not have been a secret. It will have been a huge story, both
>> as it neared adoption and when finally enacted. As a presidential election
>> year unfolds, it's all people will be talking about when discussing the
>> general election. They will quickly shift into a national popular vote state
>> of mind, and discussion of a dozen swing states will be replaced by
>> strategies for getting the most votes nationally, involving all states and
>> their voters. People will be excited about this -- 70% or more think it's
>> the way presidents should be elected, and now it will be happening.
>>
>>
>>
>> But despite this, suppose partisans running a state grow convinced that
>> their party's nominee can't win the national popular vote, but might win
>> under current state-by-state winner-take-all rules. Already you've lost me,
>> frankly, because such a prediction is very hard to make. A lot of people
>> (including me) going into the 2000 election thought that Gore might win the
>> Electoral College while losing the popular vote -- and of course it went the
>> other way. To win the Electoral College, you have to be close in the popular
>> vote. And iif you're close in the popular vote, you of course vave a change
>> to win -- just ask John Kerry, who at 7 pm ET on election night 2004 was
>> expected by many to win the national popular vote and the presidency
>>
>>
>>
>> Despite this unlikely calculation, let's suppose we still have some brazen
>> partisans who have decided this is the way to go. So under the intense
>> spotlight of a presidential race, the governor calls a special session (as
>> would be necessary in nearly all states), and the majority decides to run
>> roughshod over dissenting legislators, break its interstate contract and
>> resort to the old system that has the support of only some 20% to 30% of
>> voters in that state and around the nation.
>>
>>
>>
>> As with the enactment of National Popular Vote plan, this action would not
>> go unnoticed. And I can't imagine a scenario where partisans would actually
>> think this would help them. If they're already bound to lose the national
>> popular vote, such a brazen violation of good sense and popular opinion is
>> going to lose their national standard bearer a lot of votes.
>>
>>
>>
>> Third, this brazen act of self-destructive irrationality only would matter
>> if the state led by these addled partisans happened to have enough electoral
>> votes to undo the compact. But keep in mind that although the compact is
>> triggered by states having at least 270 electoral votes, that number is a
>> lower bound, not an upper one. Given NPV's popularity among voters, there is
>> every reason to think that the compact will ultimately secure far more than
>> 270 electoral votes in its participating states. Every additional elector
>> will make Mark's scenario even more implausible -- and indeed at a certain
>> point unless there was an even more unlikely coordinated exodus of states.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now, contrast this with the status quo. Right now, under current law, a
>> state controlled by one party that might be won in the presidential race the
>> other party could try to change its rules to give their side electoral
>> votes. For instance, Georgia and North Carolina, which were controlled by
>> Democrats at that time, could have gone to the congressional district or
>> proportional allocation system in the fall of 2000. And if either one of
>> them had, Al Gore would have won the presidential race. Indeed in 2004,
>> Colorado voted on a ballot measure to go proportional allocation of
>> electoral votes in that very election.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nothing is stopping states from doing this except the same political
>> factors that would stop them from trying to cheat the National Popular
>> Vote compact -- it would be seen as hyperpartisan and "against fair play."
>> But unlike National Popular Vote, states would not be inhibited by an
>> interstate compact. And furthermore, NPV will likely push states far past
>> 270 electoral votes where no one state could undo it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Every Vote Equal goes into this in far more detail. Check out the answers
>> on potential withdrawal after the election here, for example:
>>
>> http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers/m9.php
>>
>>
>>
>> Rob Richie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Sean Parnell <
>> sparnell at campaignfreedom.org> wrote:
>>
>> Mark’s critique is an important one, and one that we note in the letter
>> that CCP routinely sends to states considering NPV legislation. I’d also
>> note that given the questions surrounding whether the NPV can truly be
>> binding on a state, it is almost certain that some state will at least *
>> attempt* to withdraw or look into their ability to withdraw from the NPV
>> should it appear advantageous. I suspect that even an unsuccessful attempt
>> to withdraw would spark a constitutional crisis and significant civic
>> trauma, let alone a successful attempt.
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh, and for those of you unfamiliar with Tara Ross, she literally wrote
>> the book on preserving the Electoral College *Enlightened Democracy: The
>> Case for the Electoral College<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002JING2A?ie=UTF8&tag=colonialpress-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B002JING2A>
>> *, and I’m thrilled she’s joined us here.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sean Parnell
>>
>> President
>>
>> Center for Competitive Politics
>>
>> http://www.campaignfreedom.org
>>
>> http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp
>>
>> 124 S. West Street, #201
>>
>> Alexandria, VA  22310
>>
>> (703) 894-6800 phone
>>
>> (703) 894-6813 direct
>>
>> (703) 894-6811 fax
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
>> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Scarberry,
>> Mark
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 08, 2011 5:03 PM
>> *To:* law-election at uci.edu
>>
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] National Popular Vote Passes Crucial Milestone
>>
>>
>>
>> We can argue about whether it is a good idea in effect to scrap the
>> electoral college. We can argue about the partisan political effects of
>> doing so. We can certainly argue about whether such a sub rosa attempt to
>> amend the Constitution without using Article V is a breach of constitutional
>> principles (and thus should be rejected whether or not adoption or
>> enforcement of the NPV compact would raise justiciable issues)
>>
>>
>>
>> But it’s important not to lose sight of the question whether such a
>> compact could be binding. Under Article II, state legislatures have plenary
>> power to allocate electoral votes on whatever basis they may choose (subject
>> to the 14th, 15th, 19th etc. Amendments), including, I suppose the basis
>> of the national popular vote. The NPV compact proponents in fact rely on
>> that plenary power and even say that state legislatures cannot be limited in
>> their exercise of it “at any time.” See
>> http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/explanation.php (“3- Sentence
>> Description” of NPV Compact) [“Under the U.S. Constitution, the states have
>> exclusive and plenary (complete) power to allocate their electoral votes,
>> and may change their state laws concerning the awarding of their electoral
>> votes at any time.”]
>>
>>
>>
>> But of course there is a strong argument that the NPV compact itself
>> violates that constitutional rule, by purporting to bind states to the NPV
>> method of allocating electoral votes during a six-month blackout period
>> beginning on July 20 of each presidential election year. It is not at all
>> clear that state legislatures can deprive themselves for such a period of
>> the Article II power to decide how to allocate electors.* If the blackout
>> provision is not binding, then each state’s legislature would be free to
>> game the NPV system, by backing out at the last minute if it thinks the
>> national popular vote is going to go against the candidate that voters in
>> the state seem to prefer (or that the state legislature prefers). The
>> blackout period seems to be an essential element of the NPV proposal
>> precisely in order to prevent such gaming of the system.
>>
>>
>>
>> As the proponents say:
>>
>>
>>
>> “The purpose for the delay in the effective date of a withdrawal is to
>> ensure that a withdrawal will not be undertaken—perhaps for partisan
>> political purposes—in the midst of a presidential campaign or in the period
>> between the popular voting in early November and the meeting of the
>> Electoral College in mid-December.” See
>> http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/resources/EVE-CH-6-Ed1-Pr4.pdf (at
>> page 266).”
>>
>>
>>
>> Would NPV compact proponents still be in favor the compact without the
>> blackout provision?
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark Scarberry
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark S. Scarberry
>>
>> Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
>>
>> Malibu, CA 90263
>>
>> (310)506-4667
>>
>>
>>
>> *Congress seemingly has provided that the method of selecting electors
>> cannot be changed after the date on which electors are chosen. Article II,
>> sec. 1, cl. 4 gives Congress the power to force states to choose their
>> electors by a date set by Congress, and thus state legislatures could not
>> effectively change their method of selection of electors for that election
>> after that date (election day: the first Tuesday after the first Monday in
>> November). State legislatures are not otherwise limited (except that
>> Congress has only committed to following the state’s procedures for
>> determining disputes about which electors have been chosen if those
>> procedures were adopted before the date set by Congress for selection of
>> electors and only if, remember Bush v. Gore, the state’s processes have been
>> completed at least six days before the date set by Congress for electors to
>> meet and cast their votes – the first Monday after the second Wednesday in
>> December. See 3 U.S.C. sections 1, 5, and 7 (conveniently available at
>> http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html#law).
>> But the NPV compact would purport to prevent changes as of July 20.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
>> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Tara Ross
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 08, 2011 11:23 AM
>> *To:* Jamin Raskin; rhasen at law.uci.edu; law-election at uci.edu
>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] National Popular Vote Passes Crucial Milestone
>>
>>
>>
>> I am new to this listserv and should introduce myself.  My name is Tara
>> Ross, and I’ve spent much time defending and writing about the Electoral
>> College (as some on this list know). Jamie will not be surprised to find
>> that I disagree with his conclusion from this morning.
>>
>>
>>
>> He correctly notes that Republicans in a few parts of the country
>> (especially New York and California) have decided to support NPV. But these
>> Republicans are misguided if they believe NPV will help either their party
>> or their country. We should not be celebrating New York’s vote yesterday.
>>
>>
>>
>> In recent months, NPV advocates have been working hard to obtain support
>> from Republicans and conservatives. Their latest sales pitch is that NPV is
>> good for Republicans because it will eliminate the focus on swing states and
>> enable more conservative voices across the nation to be heard. (A nation
>> that leans center-right should be electing a center-right president, right?)
>> I don’t blame NPV for trying to cater to conservatives, given the outcome of
>> last November’s elections; however, I do wonder why more Republicans don’t
>> question the validity of this logic. Support for NPV has been
>> disproportionately Democratic in the past. Why would so many Democrats
>> sponsor something with the alleged purpose of electing more Republican
>> presidents?
>>
>>
>>
>> In my opinion, these Republicans are being pretty naïve to assume that
>> their party will benefit the most if NPV is implemented. The Democratic
>> Party is likely to gain the most in the short term: Elimination of the
>> Electoral College will create a new focus on urban centers—currently a
>> Democratic strength. In the long term, however, I doubt that anyone can
>> predict which party will benefit the most from this radical change to our
>> election process. NPV advocates tend to assume that they can change the
>> presidential election procedure but that virtually everything else in our
>> political universe will remain unchanged. What a dangerous assumption.
>> Arguably, everything from campaign strategies to the strength of our
>> two-party system will be impacted.
>>
>>
>>
>> Even if we could predict which party would benefit the most, it is wrong
>> to eliminate the Electoral College based purely on temporary, partisan gain.
>> I suppose some will say I am being too idealistic to think that politicians
>> should act in a non-political manner. But these officials would serve their
>> constituents best if they remembered that the founding generation
>> deliberately created constitutional safeguards such as the Electoral College
>> so that freedom might be protected over the course of decades. Surely the
>> Founders would be horrified at the partisan logic that is sometimes used to
>> support NPV.
>>
>>
>>
>> With the current system in place, presidential candidates can’t succeed
>> without winning concurrent victories across the nation from many states. The
>> system has built-in incentives, ensuring that candidates reach out to a
>> variety of voters from many regions and states. Such a system is good for
>> the health of a country as large and diverse as our own, whether you are
>> Republican or Democrat. Republicans in New York should have remembered that
>> before hastily casting aside an institution that has served us so well for
>> so long.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
>> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jamin
>> Raskin
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 08, 2011 10:08 AM
>> *To:* rhasen at law.uci.edu; law-election at uci.edu
>> *Subject:* [EL] National Popular Vote Passes Crucial Milestone
>>
>>
>>
>> Yesterday, the National Popular Vote legislation passed in two state
>> legislative chambers.
>>
>> In New York, the Republican-controlled State Senate voted 49-10 to approve
>> the interstate agreement, making it the first GOP-controlled chamber in the
>> country to do so. Senate Republicans voted 23-8 (with 1 excused), and
>> Democrats voted 26-2 (with 2 excused). Republican Senators who had been
>> cross-endorsed by the Conservative Party voted 17-7 in favor of the bill.
>>
>> This is an important political breakthrough for the National Popular Vote.
>>
>>   The Delaware House also passed the NPV legislation yesterday.
>>
>> States that have passed the NPV legislation have assembled 29% of the
>> electoral college votes needed to bring the agreement into effect.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> 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
>> (301) 270-4616
>>
>> Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see
>> 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!
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "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
> (301) 270-4616
>
> Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see
> 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!
>
>


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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
(301) 270-4616

Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see
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!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110609/55f4d621/attachment.html>