<?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 for </title>
	<atom:link href="http://rosshunter.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://rosshunter.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:56:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Using the Gavel by CLeyerle</title>
		<link>http://rosshunter.com/2010/02/using-the-gavel/comment-page-1/#comment-110</link>
		<dc:creator>CLeyerle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:56:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rosshunter.com/?p=583#comment-110</guid>
		<description>Well done. Would that all hearings were so focused on relevant commentary in a fair and even-handed way. Also commendable: letting the public talk rather than the legislators speechifying.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well done. Would that all hearings were so focused on relevant commentary in a fair and even-handed way. Also commendable: letting the public talk rather than the legislators speechifying.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Telephone Town Hall by Ross</title>
		<link>http://rosshunter.com/2009/12/telephone-town-hall/comment-page-1/#comment-104</link>
		<dc:creator>Ross</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 01:10:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rosshunter.com/?p=500#comment-104</guid>
		<description>I updated this post to reflect the correct time - 6:30pm on Tuesday December 15.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I updated this post to reflect the correct time &#8211; 6:30pm on Tuesday December 15.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Education Agenda for 2010 by Tweets that mention Education Agenda for 2010 -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://rosshunter.com/2009/11/education-agenda-for-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-103</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention Education Agenda for 2010 -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:29:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rosshunter.com/?p=496#comment-103</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by House Dem Caucus, Education Voters. Education Voters said: Rep. Ross Hunter, one of our champions for education, posted an overview of education issues for the upcoming session. http://bit.ly/927q8t [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by House Dem Caucus, Education Voters. Education Voters said: Rep. Ross Hunter, one of our champions for education, posted an overview of education issues for the upcoming session. <a href="http://bit.ly/927q8t" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/927q8t</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Education Funding in 2010 by Education Agenda for 2010</title>
		<link>http://rosshunter.com/2009/11/education-funding-in-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-102</link>
		<dc:creator>Education Agenda for 2010</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:28:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rosshunter.com/?p=487#comment-102</guid>
		<description>[...] Funding. The overall budget is a disaster, with precipitous revenue declines threatening our ability to provide children with an adequate, let alone an ample education. Last year we made substantial cuts in K12 funding, though much lower as a percentage of the budget than any other area. I expect we will have to make additional cuts again this year. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Funding. The overall budget is a disaster, with precipitous revenue declines threatening our ability to provide children with an adequate, let alone an ample education. Last year we made substantial cuts in K12 funding, though much lower as a percentage of the budget than any other area. I expect we will have to make additional cuts again this year. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Tuition Increases? by Randy Dutton</title>
		<link>http://rosshunter.com/2009/04/tuition-increases/comment-page-1/#comment-68</link>
		<dc:creator>Randy Dutton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:06:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rosshunter.com/?p=332#comment-68</guid>
		<description>Your action in passing ESSB 2261 is a disgrace to anyone who believes in fiscal sanity.  Our economy is in tatters and it is getting worse and you commit taxpayers to more debt?  Do you not realize that the federal government borrowed money from China for its &quot;tax rebate&quot; and that we have to pay interest?  The debt load increases the same time most of the obligations you made come due.  The Senate and Legislature are destroying the state economy just like our Congress is destroying the national economy.  Tell me when is it the right of a state worker to get bonuses or cost of living increases when the taxpayer doesn&#039;t?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your action in passing ESSB 2261 is a disgrace to anyone who believes in fiscal sanity.  Our economy is in tatters and it is getting worse and you commit taxpayers to more debt?  Do you not realize that the federal government borrowed money from China for its &#8220;tax rebate&#8221; and that we have to pay interest?  The debt load increases the same time most of the obligations you made come due.  The Senate and Legislature are destroying the state economy just like our Congress is destroying the national economy.  Tell me when is it the right of a state worker to get bonuses or cost of living increases when the taxpayer doesn&#8217;t?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on National Popular Vote by susan</title>
		<link>http://rosshunter.com/2009/04/national-popular-vote/comment-page-1/#comment-66</link>
		<dc:creator>susan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:20:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rosshunter.com/?p=326#comment-66</guid>
		<description>Changing the way we elect the President is an important topic that deserves careful scrutiny. 

http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers.php
provides responses to concerns that have been raised during the course of the debate on the National Popular Vote bill.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Changing the way we elect the President is an important topic that deserves careful scrutiny. </p>
<p><a href="http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers.php" rel="nofollow">http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers.php</a><br />
provides responses to concerns that have been raised during the course of the debate on the National Popular Vote bill.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on National Popular Vote by susan</title>
		<link>http://rosshunter.com/2009/04/national-popular-vote/comment-page-1/#comment-65</link>
		<dc:creator>susan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:18:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rosshunter.com/?p=326#comment-65</guid>
		<description>The small states are the most disadvantaged of all under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus. 

Small states are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Only 1 of the 13 smallest states are battleground states (and only 5 of the 25 smallest states are battlegrounds). 

Of the 13 smallest states, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has &quot;only&quot; 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter. 

The fact that the bonus of two electoral votes is an illusory benefit to the small states has been widely recognized by the small states for some time. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly low-population states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kentucky, Florida, Pennsylvania) in suing New York in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that New York&#039;s use of  winner-take-all effectively disenfranchised voters in their states. The Court declined to hear the case (presumably because of the well-established constitutional provision that the manner of awarding electoral votes is exclusively a state decision). Ironically, defendant New York is no longer a battleground state (as it was in the 1960s) and today suffers the very same disenfranchisement as the 12 non-competitive low-population states. A vote in New York is, today, equal to a vote in Wyoming--both are equally worthless and irrelevant in presidential elections. 

The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically &quot;radioactive&quot;in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.  

In small states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by a total of seven state legislative chambers, including one house in Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont.  It has been enacted by Hawaii.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The small states are the most disadvantaged of all under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus. </p>
<p>Small states are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Only 1 of the 13 smallest states are battleground states (and only 5 of the 25 smallest states are battlegrounds). </p>
<p>Of the 13 smallest states, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has &#8220;only&#8221; 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter. </p>
<p>The fact that the bonus of two electoral votes is an illusory benefit to the small states has been widely recognized by the small states for some time. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly low-population states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kentucky, Florida, Pennsylvania) in suing New York in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that New York&#8217;s use of  winner-take-all effectively disenfranchised voters in their states. The Court declined to hear the case (presumably because of the well-established constitutional provision that the manner of awarding electoral votes is exclusively a state decision). Ironically, defendant New York is no longer a battleground state (as it was in the 1960s) and today suffers the very same disenfranchisement as the 12 non-competitive low-population states. A vote in New York is, today, equal to a vote in Wyoming&#8211;both are equally worthless and irrelevant in presidential elections. </p>
<p>The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically &#8220;radioactive&#8221;in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.  </p>
<p>In small states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by a total of seven state legislative chambers, including one house in Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont.  It has been enacted by Hawaii.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on National Popular Vote by susan</title>
		<link>http://rosshunter.com/2009/04/national-popular-vote/comment-page-1/#comment-64</link>
		<dc:creator>susan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:17:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rosshunter.com/?p=326#comment-64</guid>
		<description>77% OF WASHINGTON VOTERS SUPPORT A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IN DECEMBER 2008 POLL

A survey of 800 Washington state voters conducted on December 2-3, 2008 showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

Support was 77% among independents, 85% among Democrats, and 68% among Republicans.

By age, support was 80% among 18-29 year olds, 76% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.

By gender, support was 84% among women and 69% among men.

By race, support was 78% among whites (representing 87% of respondents), 57% among African-Americans (representing 4% of respondents), 60% among Hispanics (representing 1% of respondents), and 78% among Others (representing 7% of respondents). 

see www.NationalPopularVote.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>77% OF WASHINGTON VOTERS SUPPORT A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IN DECEMBER 2008 POLL</p>
<p>A survey of 800 Washington state voters conducted on December 2-3, 2008 showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.</p>
<p>Support was 77% among independents, 85% among Democrats, and 68% among Republicans.</p>
<p>By age, support was 80% among 18-29 year olds, 76% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.</p>
<p>By gender, support was 84% among women and 69% among men.</p>
<p>By race, support was 78% among whites (representing 87% of respondents), 57% among African-Americans (representing 4% of respondents), 60% among Hispanics (representing 1% of respondents), and 78% among Others (representing 7% of respondents). </p>
<p>see <a href="http://www.NationalPopularVote.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.NationalPopularVote.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on National Popular Vote by susan</title>
		<link>http://rosshunter.com/2009/04/national-popular-vote/comment-page-1/#comment-63</link>
		<dc:creator>susan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:16:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rosshunter.com/?p=326#comment-63</guid>
		<description>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 1,512 state legislators in 48 states.

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). 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 25 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington, and both houses in California, Colorado, 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</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<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>Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. </p>
<p>The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes&#8211;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). </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>The bill is currently endorsed by 1,512 state legislators in 48 states.</p>
<p>In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state&#8217;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&#8211; 68%, Iowa &#8211;75%, Michigan&#8211; 73%, Missouri&#8211; 70%, New Hampshire&#8211; 69%, Nevada&#8211; 72%, New Mexico&#8211; 76%, North Carolina&#8211; 74%, Ohio&#8211; 70%, Pennsylvania &#8212; 78%, Virginia &#8212; 74%, and Wisconsin &#8212; 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware &#8211;75%, Maine &#8212; 71%, Nebraska &#8212; 74%, New Hampshire &#8211;69%, Nevada &#8212; 72%, New Mexico &#8212; 76%, Rhode Island &#8212; 74%, and Vermont &#8212; 75%;  in Southern and border states: Arkansas &#8211;80%, Kentucky &#8212; 80%, Mississippi &#8211;77%, Missouri &#8212; 70%, North Carolina &#8212; 74%, and Virginia &#8212; 74%; and in other states polled: California &#8212; 70%, Connecticut &#8212; 73% , Massachusetts &#8212; 73%, New York &#8212; 79%, and Washington &#8212; 77%.</p>
<p>The National Popular Vote bill has passed 25 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington, and both houses in California, Colorado, 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 &#8212; 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.</p>
<p>See <a href="http://www.NationalPopularVote.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.NationalPopularVote.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on National Popular Vote by susan</title>
		<link>http://rosshunter.com/2009/04/national-popular-vote/comment-page-1/#comment-62</link>
		<dc:creator>susan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:16:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rosshunter.com/?p=326#comment-62</guid>
		<description>The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided &quot;battleground&quot; states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided &quot;battleground&quot; 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 &quot;battleground&quot; 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&#039;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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided &#8220;battleground&#8221; states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided &#8220;battleground&#8221; 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 &#8220;battleground&#8221; 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.<br />
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&#8217;s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
