<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 2012 Electoral Math</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/25/2012-electoral-math/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/25/2012-electoral-math/</link>
	<description>Reality-based political commentary</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2026 18:41:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chris1962</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/25/2012-electoral-math/#comment-22623</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris1962</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 03:28:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5789#comment-22623</guid>
		<description>Oh, you know I&#039;ll be commenting. I&#039;m just tense. Big day tomorrow, don&#039;tcha know. I&#039;ll have to be doing some nar-nee-nar-nee-nar-narring for awhile, but I look forward to a good discussion after that about the ruling and where you think the parties take it from there.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, you know I'll be commenting. I'm just tense. Big day tomorrow, don'tcha know. I'll have to be doing some nar-nee-nar-nee-nar-narring for awhile, but I look forward to a good discussion after that about the ruling and where you think the parties take it from there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Weigant</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/25/2012-electoral-math/#comment-22615</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Weigant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:58:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5789#comment-22615</guid>
		<description>Chris1962 -

Ah, c&#039;mon, that&#039;s your ONLY comment on this article?  I&#039;m disappointed, you&#039;re usually more into this stats-n-charts stuff...

:-)

Heh.

-CW</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris1962 -</p>
<p>Ah, c'mon, that's your ONLY comment on this article?  I'm disappointed, you're usually more into this stats-n-charts stuff...</p>
<p>:-)</p>
<p>Heh.</p>
<p>-CW</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris1962</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/25/2012-electoral-math/#comment-22613</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris1962</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:39:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5789#comment-22613</guid>
		<description>Dear Harry Reid: No, the Tea Party has not gone away. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/06/27/sullivan-joins-list-of-felled-house-incumbents/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Harry Reid: No, the Tea Party has not gone away. <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/06/27/sullivan-joins-list-of-felled-house-incumbents/" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/06/27/sullivan-joins-list-of-felled-house-incumbents/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: oldgulph</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/25/2012-electoral-math/#comment-22589</link>
		<dc:creator>oldgulph</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:04:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5789#comment-22589</guid>
		<description>Presidential elections don&#039;t have to be this way.



* * *
Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the &quot;canvas&quot;) in what is called a &quot;Certificate of Ascertainment.&quot; They list the electors and the number of votes cast for each.  The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes reported in the Certificates of Ascertainment. You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site.


* * *

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).


* * *

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of &#039;battleground&#039; states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just &#039;spectators&#039; and ignored after the primaries.


* * *
	
When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.


* * *
	
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.


* * *
	
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state&#039;s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.


* * *

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.


* * *

NationalPopularVote	* * *
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Presidential elections don't have to be this way.</p>
<p>* * *<br />
Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." They list the electors and the number of votes cast for each.  The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes reported in the Certificates of Ascertainment. You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site.</p>
<p>* * *</p>
<p>The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).</p>
<p>* * *</p>
<p>Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the primaries.</p>
<p>* * *</p>
<p>When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.</p>
<p>* * *</p>
<p>The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.</p>
<p>* * *</p>
<p>In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.</p>
<p>* * *</p>
<p>The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.</p>
<p>* * *</p>
<p>NationalPopularVote	* * *<br />
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/25/2012-electoral-math/#comment-22585</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:44:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5789#comment-22585</guid>
		<description>This election is going to be a nail-biter, that much is certain..

As cliche as it sounds, the future of this country is at stake..

Will we rise to our former glory??  

Or will we become Greece???


Michale.....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This election is going to be a nail-biter, that much is certain..</p>
<p>As cliche as it sounds, the future of this country is at stake..</p>
<p>Will we rise to our former glory??  </p>
<p>Or will we become Greece???</p>
<p>Michale.....</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
