The Connecticut House expects to vote on HB 6437, the National Popular Vote Plan, sometime in the next few weeks. See this article. The bill had passed the Joint Committee on Government Administration & Elections on March 25.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
This topic seems always to draw the same comments from someone identified solely as “Susan”. I have never seen “Susan” identified any further.
I have identified myself several times as associated with the Green Party of Michigan, and provided the address of my personal-ISP-space Website. That information is relevant to the discussion, at least to some degree, and I provide it out of respect for the discussion.
I would ask that “Susan” show us similar respect, and provide similar identification of herself.
73% OF CONNECTICUT VOTERS SUPPORT A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IN APRIL 2008 POLL
A survey of 797 Connecticut voters conducted April 19-20, 2008 showed 73%-27% support for a national popular vote for President.
By party, support for a national popular vote for President is 80%-20% among Democratic voters; 59%-41% among Republicans, and 76%-24% for Others.
By age, support is 76%-24% among 18-29 year olds; 67%-33% among 30-45 year olds; 72%-28% among 46-65 year olds; and 78%-22% among 65-and-older.
By gender, support is 81%-19% among women and 64%-36% among men.
By race, support is 73%-27% among whites, 71%-29% among African-Americans, 79%-21% among Hispanics, and 66%-34% among Others.
see http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Looks as though Susan doesn’t read comments from other commenters.
Susan’s comments look accurate, even if notalways responsive to other comments.
Note that I often comment to, and I’ll say this is Rob Richie, director of FairVote and c-author of Every Vote Equal explaining the NPV plan.
Mr. Richie does identify himself — for which I thank him. And his comments tend to vary somewhat to fit the details of the particular discussion going on. (As here, for example.) Comments from “Susan” seem to me to be largely cut-and-paste copies from one NPV thread to the next — except for fitting in reported poll numbers from the state being discussed. And failure to respond to other comments, to me, means failure to take actual part in the discussion that is a major purpose — arguably *the* purpose — of these threads after the stories Richard posts.
Then, too, poll numbers *can* be accurately reported. (Though I don’t have quite as much faith as I used to in the reliability of poll results given the shaping of questions that is so often done by so many polling entities, deliberately or not.) But *opinion* comments, of course, can’t be *accurate* — in an absolute sense — as anything more than reflections of the writer’s opinion. How much reliance we put in those depends in significant part on what we know and think (and think we know?) about the writer.
Which is why, while I disagree with Mr. Richie on a number of points with respect to this issue, I respect him for what I know of him — including his other work, and the fact that he *does* identify himself. As far as I have seen, however, “Susan” has done much less — if anything — to earn similar respect for her opinions. Hence my request/invitation.