Judy Crockett

Judy Crockett
Judy Crockett

Sunday, March 08, 2009

LWV to Meet March 12, 2009 at 7pm in Manistee

On Thursday, March 12, at 7 pm, the Guest Speaker for the public meeting of League of Women Voters Manistee County will be Linda Stephan. Linda Stephan is one of the most recognized voices of beloved local public radio station, Interlochen Public Radio.The meeting is open to the public and will take place 7pm at the Boathouse Grill, downtown Manistee, 440 River Street. Tel: (231)723-2300IPR was the recipient of the 2007 LWV Manistee County "Light In Dark Places" award in recognition of their stellar example protecting the principles established in the Bill of Rights - principally the freedom of the press and freedom of expression.March 15-21 is 'Sunshine Week' and Ms. Stephan will take part in a Town Hall style meeting with the audience to discuss the importance of 'protecting the public's right to know' and why the Sunshine Laws are still so important and necessary today.Also on the agenda will be an update of the status of IPR's fund raising to reach the $250,000 goal to begin transmitting from Manistee County and what that will eventually mean for local reception and programming.LWV Manistee County will also be determining whether to participate in the National Popular Vote Compact (NPV) consensus. For more information on this issue see e www.lwv.org and click on the link to National Popular Vote Compact.Further information about 2009 public activities and services of League of Women Voters Manistee County can be found on the web at www.lwvmanisteecounty.org or by calling 231 864 2686.Our web site has a RSS feed - sign up and you will receive an automatic email notice when something has been added or changed.We also now have a public moderated Blog at http://manisteecountylwv.wordpress.com where you can also sign up for a RSS alert and take part in online discussions.Membership is encouraged, but not required, to attend or participate in any public League event. The purpose of the League of Women Voters is to encourage citizen participation in local government and to provide a forum where citizens can become better informed about local, state and national issues which affect their daily lives.If you no longer wish to be on our public e-News list, please let us know.Dendra J. Best. President League of Women Voters Manistee CountyWe Grow Democracy One Vote At A Time!PO Box 320, Bear Lake, MI 49614-0320(231)864-2686www.lwvmanisteecounty.org


mvymvy said...

The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

mvymvy said...

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 would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators — 460 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

The National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, Miami Herald, Sarasota Herald Tribune, Sacramento Bee, The Tennessean, Fayetteville Observer, Anderson Herald Bulletin, Wichita Falls Times, The Columbian, and other newspapers. The bill has been endorsed by Common Cause, Fair Vote, and numerous other organizations.

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). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado — 68%, Iowa — 75%, Michigan — 73%, Missouri — 70%, New Hampshire — 69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, North Carolina — 74%, Ohio — 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware — 75%, Maine — 71%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire — 69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas —80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi —77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 73% , Massachusetts — 73%, New York — 79%, and Washington — 77%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 23 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

mvymvy said...


A survey of 800 Michigan voters conducted on December 2-3, 2008 showed 73% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

Support was 73% among independents, 78% among Democrats, and 68% among Republicans.

By age, support was 77% among 18-29 year olds, 67% among 30-45 year olds, 74% among 46-65 year olds, and 75% for those older than 65.

By gender, support was 86% among women and 59% among men.

By race, support was 75% among whites (representing 82% of respondents), 64% among African-Americans (representing 14% of respondents), 64% among Hispanics (representing 2% of respondents), and 69% among Others (representing 2% of respondents).

Based on whether the respondent or someone in the respondent's household is a member of a labor union, support was 77% for union households and 72% for non-union households.

see www.NationalPopularVote.com