"A resolution opposing the National Popular Vote initiative won support of every voting RNC member but one who voted "present" instead of "yes.""

And also from the same article:

"Michigan RNC member Saul Anuzis, the leader of the small group on the national commnittee supporting the popular vote change, told The Washington Times that he and five others on the national committee had "expressed that support and at least 20 were open and undecided, but not willing to take any hits for something they didn't care that much about.""

Two REALLY huge problems here.

First off, what gives with republicans unwilling to go on record actually opposing something?

The recent state caucus fiasco was bad enough (12 minutes?!?), but c'mon! How difficult is it really to vote "NO"?

Voting "present" is something I would ascribe to a spineless coward like Pres. B.O.

Second, why in the hell is Saul Anuzis supporting ditching the electoral college and going to a straight popular vote?

In an article by Ben Smith (published by Politico on January 9th, 2011) written around the time that certain people were jockeying for RNC chairmanship, the Alaska National Committeewoman, Debbie Joslin, heavily and publicly criticizes Mr. Anuzis for duping republican legislators in several (perhaps all) states into believing that the RNC was onboard with NPV.

According to Ms. Joslin, the means of deception was a letter that had been mocked up to appear to the casual observer that it had been printed on official RNC letterhead.  (The letter to Alaska State Senator Charlie Huggins is linked here.)

Additionally, Mr. Anuzis wrote the forward to the 3rd Edition of "Every Vote Equal" (a book that lays out in detail how the NPV strategy is to be accomplished).

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 state (electoral college votes), by political affiliation, support for a national popular vote in recent polls has been:

On June 7, 2011, the Republican-controlled New York Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 47-13 margin, with Republicans favoring the bill by 21-11. Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party favored the bill 17-7.

Jason Cabel Roe, a lifelong conservative activist and professional political consultant wrote in National Popular Vote is Good for Republicans: "I strongly support National Popular Vote.   It is good for Republicans, it is good for conservatives, it is good for California, and it is good for America.    National Popular Vote is not a grand conspiracy hatched by the Left to manipulate the election outcome.  
It is a bipartisan effort of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to allow every state - and every voter - to have a say in the selection of our President, and not just the 15 Battle Ground States.

National Popular Vote is not a change that can be easily explained, nor the ramifications thought through in sound bites. It takes a keen political mind to understand just how much it can help . . . Republicans.  . . .Opponents either have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea or don't fully understand it. . . .  We believe that the more exposure and discussion the reform has the more support that will build for it."

Former Tennessee U.S. Senator and 2008 presidential candidate Fred Thompson(R), former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (R), and  former U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO)  are co-champions of National Popular Vote.

Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the NPV plan would not help either party over the other.

Some other supporters who wrote forewords to "Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote " include:

Laura Brod served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She is the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.

James Brulte  who served as Republican Leader of the  California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.

 Ray Haynes served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002

Dean Murray is a member of the New York State Assembly.  He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican, Conservative Party member in February 2010.  He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.

Richard I'm Not A Crook, Gerry the Crooks' Klutz, George Read My Lips new taxes, and Bob Fix My Dick.

Only a paid shill would defend this blatant anti-American proposal as much as he has.

It's been said before, and I'll say it again; you can know a lot about someone by whom they associate with. Let's take a gander at this little ditty:

Organizational Endorsements

Asian American Action Fund

From their own website:

"The AAA-Fund is a Democratic political action committee whose goal is to increase the voice of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders on every level of local, state and federal government in America."

Common Cause

Led by the likes former Clinton Sec. of Labor Robert Reich and Rep. Pat Schroeder (among others with interesting backgrounds).

FairVote

From their own website:

"Nor should our system be such that candidates can win single-seat offices despite being opposed by the majority."

Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action

From their website:

"When you join JALSA as a member for 2011, you become an essential part of a progressive public policy organization, inspired by Jewish traditions and teachings, leading the way in protecting civil rights and constitutional liberties, and fighting for social and economic justice.

As a member of JALSA, you can be proud of your organization for:

• Fighting for environmental and food justice;

• Defending the rights of all workers, including immigrant workers, to organize;

• Leading the effort to pass sick days legislation;

• Submitting amicus briefs in key discrimination, religious accommodation, and free speech cases;

• Standing up for progressive taxation;

• Opposing discrimination against the LGBT community;

• Protecting public school funding, and oppposing privatization and high-stakes testing; and

• Creating the "First Friday" speaker series to engage with top level policymakers each month. "

They are a 501(c)(3) organization.

Doesn't the IRS have regulations prohibiting 501(c)(3) involvement in elections?

National Latino Congreso

Think: Warm and fuzzy version of La Raza.

I mean c'mon. When you prominently display this on your website, you know they're an alright group!

Hmmmmmmmm! Why does that image seem so familiar???

National Black Caucus of State Legislators

I've got pages and pages of stuff on these guys. In just 2011 alone, they supported:

• The PPACA (Obamacare).

• Common Core state standards for education.

• Mental Health Parity.

Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund

Interesting endorsement list you have there:

Alan Grayson.

Shelia Jackson Lee.

Chaka Fattah.

John Dingle.

John Conyers.

This reads like a who's who from the DSA.

US PIRG

Supporters of the PPACA (Obamacare) and diluting the accuracy of the voting process (same day voting).

Public Citizen

Among other things:

• Supported Dodd-Frank.

• Supports the Death Tax.

I'll give this bunch kudos for doing their best to operate below the radar.

Unfortunately (for them), I have other methods of keeping tabs on them.

Bottom line: They're a member of Soros' Shadow Party. Take a look at who else in on that list (and mentioned above).

Now you may ponder: What is the purpose of the "Shadow Party"?

I'm glad you asked! Simply put, the goal of the "Shadow Party" is:

"to mobilize resources -- money, get-out-the-vote drives, campaign advertising, and policy initatives -- to advance Democratic Party agendas, elect Democratic candidates, and guide the Democratic Party ever-further towards the left. "

I'm getting writers cramp right about now, but there's one final item I want to add: Michigan elected officials supporting this concept.

Now, look at all of those Michigan democrats?

Why would anyone who calls themselves a republican even consider support a proposal with SO MUCH democratic support and whose end goal is to help advance the democrat's agenda?

I live in Sweden (no am NOT a socialist. At all.). I guess I believe in representative democracy, meaning that the government should be elected by a majority of voters. (Inherent in true democracy is, of course, minority protection.)

Because your great nation has a large impact on the rest of the world I am interested in the politics of your country. Your president is above all your face to the world and decides your foreign policy.

Some years ago, I read about the NPV on the web, and I thought it seemed a good idea. There's been a few years since I heard of it, but I now see that a minority of people seem to be vocally against it. Like you. However, it seems that most Americans like NPV when asked.

Now I ask you: what are your reasons for being against it?

I see some great advantages.

The proper way for the people to choose a president is to tally the votes on election day. If you believe in one person, one vote, you would prefer NPV to the current method(s). Do you think each state should choose? The current statewide winner-take-all system introduces a random element in the election which caused the crisis of 2000.

I know the constitution says that the electors are selected by the legislatures in each state. Do you think the president should be chosen by the people or by the state legislatures through the electors?

I read that framer Madison was much in favor of a national popular vote (he who wrote the Federalist papers), but he could not obtain a majority for his view at the convention, resulting in the system of state legislatures deciding electors. Still the NPV is something which is decided by state legislatures, so it seems in line with the constitution and with the 14th amendment. Since voters only have a right to vote for presidential electors and the state legislatures have the right to do what they please when selecting electors. No further lead is given in the constitution, so it seems the framers left this point open for improvement. Nixon and a majority of republicans tried make an NPV amendment in the 1970s but it was stopped (if I rememeber correctly) by some democrats in New York.

I believe that a system which counts all votes nationwide would improve Americans' feeling of participation in their government, and it would make election day something which would be meaningful for more people to participate in.

Electoral votes based on congressional district (as in Nebraska and Maine) seems even less agreeable than the more used statewide winner-take-all, because the congressional districts are carved out by partisan bodies, resulting in even more skewed representation.

The most important thing with democracy is that it gives us a nonviolent method of getting rid of bad leaders. The most popular leader is not necessarily the best, but if most people think so at election day, you'd have to endure him for 4 years. Then he can be outvoted. However, with this randomness of the statewide electoral vote-shifts it is less easy to achieve. Pandering to key voters in key states may be enough to stay in power. T

Let me add that I am of course in favor of voter ID. And all possible checks on voter fraud. But I am also in favor of methods which facilitate voting for those who have a right to vote. And I don't say that Gore should have been president in 2000 based on the national popular vote count, because that election was not performed under those premises.

However, it is a bit sad that those who now plan for the next election only talk about a winning few key states. They have no incentive in addressing people in big chunks of the union which are given to either candidate(northeast and west coast, the south, and large parts of the midwest).

I have already spoken with the offices of:

Representatives:

• Bolger
  
• Yonker
  
• MacGregor
  
• Agema
  
• Hooker
  
• Lyons
  
• Rendon
  
• and two Democrats who owe me a favor

• Booher
  
• Emmons
  
• Hildenbrand
  
• Jansen
  
• Meekhof
  
• Moolenaar
  
• Richardville
  
• Schuitmaker