Finally getting around to reading the March/April Skeptical Inquirer. Two articles have relevance to my recent testimony against the Agreement for the National Popular Vote.
The first is a article by Lauren Becker revewing Carl Sagan's postumus book:
"he understood that the issue is a matter of emotion more than a matter of facts. Each side always thinks they have evidence for their claims, but emontions cloud judgement and make it difficult to separate wishes from reality."
The second is the "Declaration In Defense Of Science And Secularism" which reminds us of the importance to our future of accepting Science.
http://www.cfidc.org/declaration.html
NationalPopularVote.org touts surveys of the public in 1978 and 1980 that 70% of the public supports the popular election of the President. While the survey is likely accurate, how many believed Sadam was linked with 9/11? How many believed in rampant voter suppression and worried about electronic voting before 2000? The Declaration above references a Pew poll that 64% are open to teaching intelligent design or creationism in the public schools.
Birch Beyh, the chief proponent of the National Popular Vote states:
"one of the things we can do to limit fraud is to limit the benefits to be gained by fraud. Under a direct popular vote system, one fraudulent vote wins one vote in the return. In the electoral college system, one fraudulent vote could mean 45 electoral votes, 28 electoral votes."
Good Grief, Senator Beyh!!! It would should be obvious to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of arithmetic, that under a popular vote a single vote could take all of the 538 electoral votes!!!
Maybe that explains why a Psychology major was the only person to testify for the Agreement to the GAE in Connecticut. Christopher Pearson is also a legislator from Vermont and is employed by NationalPopularVote.org, earning his living supporting this agreement: http://www.christopherpearson.org/?page=3
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment