Who Voted for NPV in the AZ House?

Wall of Shame Displays GOP Sellouts on NPV

HB2456 NPV House Vote

With 2 Arizona legislators not voting, 40 voted to help bypass and nullify the Electoral College System of the Constitution, in keeping with the goal of the Communist Party USA to enact a “direct popular vote for president”. Is it any wonder why U.S. citizens are losing their constitutional rights through one devious scheme after another?

This is payback by some legislators to CQ for helping get them elected in the first place. Once the public realizes what is really happening and attacks these sellouts for betrayal, watch how fast these will back-peddle and try to excuse themselves for now knowing all the facts which would have caused them to oppose NPV.

NPV LIES Claiming AZ is Insignificant!

AZ 5th On 2016 Electorate Representation Index

To determine which states fairly represent the U.S. electorate, analysts compared the 50 states across five key categories: 1) Sociodemographics, 2) Economy, 3) Education, 4) Religion, and 5) Public Opinion. Arizona ranked number 4 overall when everything was tallied and it is the only western state in the top ten.

Analysts raised the question of which state truly deserves the top spot in the primaries and released their results in the 2016 Electorate Representation Index.

Analysts with the personal finance website WalletHub, addressed the controversial topic that surfaces every primary season: the apparent “whiteness” of Iowa and New Hampshire. The matter usually is boiled down to a single question: How could two mostly rural states with majority-white populations fairly represent the national electorate?

Under that logic, according to the group, handing the earliest positions in the presidential primaries to the Hawkeye and Granite states would understandably seem undeserved and bring into question whether candidates are dropping out of the race simply because of a flawed system. But as it turns out, the issue is a bit more complicated. Many experts have argued that entitlement to the earliest position in the primaries should be based on multiple factors, not solely on a state’s racial composition.

Earlier this year, WalletHub’s analysts compared the likeness of the U.S. with Iowa and New Hampshire and found that these states — to the expected surprise of many — mirror the nation by 89.39 percent and 82.11 percent, respectively. This led them to identify which of the 50 states are truly representative of the U.S. population and thus truly worthy of the top primary-election spot.

Arizona’s Resemblance to the U.S.

  • Overall Electorate Representation Index: 92.67%
  • Individual Category Index:
    • Sociodemographics: 91.77%
    • Economy: 94.81%
    • Education: 94.09%
    • Religion: 91.40%
    • Public Opinion: 91.27%

The Top Ten States Are:

Overall Electorate Index State ‘Sociodem Rank ‘Economy’ Rank ‘Education’ Rank ‘Religion’ Rank Public Opinion
1 94.35% Illinois 1 1 3 6 4
2 94.32% Florida 21 9 5 1 2
3 93.17% Michigan 15 29 16 2 1
4 92.67% Arizona 18 7 15 4 13
5 91.85% Pennsylvania 25 2 44 8 3
6 91.71% Ohio 29 8 20 5 12
7 90.92% Indiana 13 25 24 3 27
8 90.81% Delaware 6 17 6 15 17
9 90.59% Missouri 24 4 8 17 18
10 90.58% Virginia 3 35 18 16 9

To see how other states stack up click here.

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2016/02/29/wallethub-2016-electorate-representation-index-arizona-ranks-high/

Ballot Harvesting–A Legacy of National Popular Vote

Arizona Ballot Harvesters Can Benefit From Cheap Stationary

Ballots in both Maricopa and Pima counties were very viewable. Ballots are often handed over to harvesters before being placed in outer envelope as seen above.Ballots in both Maricopa and Pima counties were very viewable. Ballots are often handed over to harvesters before being placed in outer envelope as seen above.

For political operatives it is an exciting time as they harvest the ballots cast in the Arizona Presidential Preference Election to be held on March 22. For bad actors, who harvest with the intent to manipulate the results, the quality of this year’s ballots could make the culling of undesirable votes a snap.

A snap of a flashlight switch that is.

While proponents of mail-in voting claim that the ballots are “secure and “private,” it appears they are anything but. According to residents across the state, the contents inside the flimsy envelopes in which ballots are returned to county recorders can clearly be seen by holding a source of light underneath them.

Dishonest harvesters can then decide what ballots get delivered to the recorders, and what ballots make it into the rubbish – in a snap.

As a result of the compelling testimony from southern Arizona community leader, Sergio Arellano, about the abuses of ballot harvesters before the House Elections Committee, awareness of the subject has grown. So red flags were quickly raised late last week when Arizonans received their Presidential Preference Election (PPE) ballots.

While nothing can be done now to prevent abuses in the PPE, the discovery of the security lapse bolsters arguments for HB2023 which will make ballot harvesting a class six felony.

“The importance of enacting into law HB2023 cannot be overemphasized,” says legislative expert Jose Borrajero. “If we are going to have an orderly society based on the rule of law, we must preserve the sanctity of the secret ballot. The two main arguments against HB2023 are purely bogus. One such argument is that certain individuals need assistance with their ballots, or else they would be disenfranchised. But they have plenty of assistance in the form of early ballots which may be voted and simply handed to their mailman. How can anyone be disenfranchised when all they need to do is make sure that their ballot makes it to their front door? The other bogus argument against HB2023 is that it is not needed because there is no voter fraud happening in AZ. But whether there is widespread voter fraud is not even the main issue here. The mere act of handing a ballot to a stranger, who is part of an organization with an agenda, should be a source of great concern to everyone. We know that envelopes can be steamed open and resealed, but we also know that it is not even necessary for someone to do that, if they have mischief on their minds. All they have to do is hold the ballots to a light source, see how they were voted, and discard those that do not agree with the philosophy of the organization. Unfortunately, those folks who are likely to surrender their ballots to these organizations do not likely know that they can to track those ballots to see if they in fact reached the election officials.”

HB2023 is currently winding its way through the Arizona Senate. The bill passed in the House along party lines with only Republican Rep. Heather Carter crossing over to join Democrats. In Arizona, as is the case across the country, ballot harvesting has been a practice mostly employed by labor unions for Democrat candidates and trade-boosting bond measures.

However for the residents in areas like southern Arizona in which the Democrat machine has stopped serving the people and now only serves the corrupt Grijalva dynasty, Democrats are quietly opposing the harvesting practices. They saw first-hand how the trusted mayor of South Tucson, Paul Diaz, was stripped of his office thanks to ballot harvesting during a recent recall pushed by the machine.

While that machine steals their ballots, it has also stolen their hope of ever running opponents to the machine. Thus, incumbents rarely face challengers in primaries.

One only needs to look at the PPE for the Democratic Party to see the fruitlessness. Few believe that Bernie Sanders has had enjoyed a fair fight on the national level. Defying all probability, the die throw by establishment operatives keep rolling for Hillary. Because it is the Democrats who employ harvesting, one has to wonder just how many Bernie ballots will end up in Arizona trash bins.

Not only has that lack of faith eliminated healthy competition and blocked new blood, it has greatly reduced voter participation. This despite the fact that proponents promised that mail-in ballots would increase turnout. Still, those who still vote need to know their votes will be counted. As Borrajero concludes, “Preserving the chain of custody of ballots is or should be a matter of great priority, and HB2023 will go a long way toward accomplishing that.”

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2016/02/29/arizona-ballot-harvesters-can-benefit-from-cheap-stationary/

More:

Arizona primary ballot box stuffing caught on tape

Phoenix Ballot Harvesters Endure Heat For CASE Cause

Top 10 Methods of Liberal Vote Fraud

How Democrats Steal Elections – Top 10 Methods of Liberal Vote Fraud

  1. Over-Voting. In Democrat strongholds like St. Louis, Philadelphia and Detroit, some precincts had 100% of their registered voters voting, with 99% of the ballots going to Gore. Clearly, multiple voting resulted in extra tallies for Gore in the 2000 election. (New York Post, 12/09/00).
  2. Dead Voters. This classic Democratic method of vote fraud goes all the way back to 1960 in Chicago and Dallas. The 2000 election was no exception. In Miami-Dade County, for example, some of the 144 ineligible votes (those which officials actually admitted to) were cast by dead people, including a Haitian-American who’s been deceased since 1977 (Miami-Herald, 12/24/00).
  3. Mystery Voters. These “voters” cast votes anyway but are not even registered to vote. In heavily Democratic Broward County, for example, more than 400 ballots were cast by non-registered voters. (Miami-Herald 1/09/01)
  4. Military ballots. Many of these votes were disqualified for the most mundane and trivial reasons. At least 1,527 valid military ballots were discarded in Florida by Democratic vote counters (Drudge Report, 11/19/00).
  5. Criminals. Felons are a natural Democratic voter and they’re protected on voter rolls across the country. In Florida at least 445 ex-convicts – including rapists and murderers — voted illegally on November 7th. Nearly all of them were registered Democrats. (Miami-Herald 12/01/00)
  6. Illegal aliens. These voters have long been a core liberal constituency, especially in California. In Orange County in 1996, Rep. Bob Dornan had his congressional seat stolen from him when thousands of illegal aliens voted for Loretta Sanchez (Christian Science Monitor, 9/2/97).
  7. Vote-buying. Purchasing votes has long been a traditional scheme by Democrats, and not just with money. In the 2000 election in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Democratic workers initiate a “smokes-for-votes” campaign in which they paid dozens of homeless men with cigarettes if they cast ballots for Al Gore (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, 11/14/00).
  8. Phantom Voters. These voters don’t really exist, but their ballots do. In the 1996 Louisiana Senate race, GOP candidate Woody Jenkins had the election stolen from him when he discovered that 7,454 actual votes were cast but had no paper trail to authenticate them (Behind the Headlines, F.R. Duplantier, 4/27/97).
  9. Dimpled chads. Those infamous punch-cards were a ballot bonanza for Al Gore. Democratic poll workers in Palm Beach, Dade and Broward counties tampered and manipulated thousands of ineligible ballots and counted them for Gore, even though no clear vote could be discerned. (NewsMax.com 11/27, 12/22, 11/18, 11/19/00).
  10. Absentee ballots. Normally it’s assumed that Republicans benefit from absentee ballots. But in the case of Miami’s 1997 mayoral election, hundreds of absentee ballots were made for sale or sent out to non-Miami residents. Fraud was so extensive in the race that the final results were overturned in court (FL Dept. of Law Enforcement Report, 1/5/98).

See Top 10 Ways to Fight Vote Fraud

http://www.conservativeaction.org/resources.php3?nameid=votefraud

 

National Popular Vote Gets a Failing Grade

National Popular Vote Gets a Failing Grade

NPV_Book_F

There are two bills in the Arizona Legislature to change how the president is elected in Arizona. The people promoting this are known as the National Popular Vote (NPV) coalition. Their claims that Arizona’s votes for president don’t matter are misleading to say the least.

Arizona voters are as equally important as voters in any other state and are counted the same under the Electoral College (EC). The EC is designed to level the playing field among differing states. NPV hints at the real problem which is the “winner-take-all” system, where EC delegate votes for the losing candidates are changed to represent the majority.

Arizona voters only express their preference in the general election for U.S. president. These vote preferences are presented to the EC delegates representing us. It doesn’t matter how we ‘feel’ about candidates’ campaigns. Arizona’s 11 electoral votes count toward EC totals. NPV fears either a third candidate dividing the votes or a candidate having the majority of the nation’s votes losing to a candidate winning the EC votes as did Sen. Al Gore in 2000. NPV is an attempt to capture all votes toward one candidate (think SuperDelegate votes giving a majority), and surprise us in the November 2016 election.

EC delegates must be left to vote their conscience just as we all should, and as our nation’s founders intended. Simply put, there were no political parties then as we have today; everyone voted for president and the candidate with the majority won.
With an effective, massive, media campaign, ‘low-information’ voters can easily be swayed to join a claimed majority. Many in opposition to NPV foresee increased problems with voter fraud as the temptation to cheat to create a majority is too powerful to resist. Increasingly, plans can and are being made to ‘game the system’ with the record showing that election integrity is not uniformly enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice. NPV creates one national precinct that could result in thousands of disputes requiring expensively settled litigation in the courts. Florida’s disputes went to the U.S. Supreme Court; the lower courts could be swamped.

The Communist Party U.S.A. endorsed National Popular Vote back in 1957… with “election of the president by a direct popular vote” in its Political Resolution Adopted by the 16th National Convention of the Communist Party 2/9-12/1957 pp. 22-23. Lenin said, “Communism must be built with non-communist hands.” And NPV is a prime example.

This is partly why the Republican National Committee, the Arizona State Republican Committee and the Maricopa County Republican Committee’s Executive Guidance Committee all oppose NPV. Just what do Arizona legislators not understand?

The main issue being ignored is that once elected, the president and Congress ignore both the U.S. Constitution and most local voters’ intent. Our constitutional republic provides that Congress is where policies become law, not through a candidate elected by a majority. The majority opinion is that government has failed.

“Winner-take-all” needs to change to a more proportional representation so voters who vote in the minority are still represented by the EC delegates representing them; otherwise, they are disenfranchised—something none of us want. And the voters tallied in the minority will continue to be disenfranchised in NPV’s dangerous design.
So NPVs solution is for a good sounding but falsely designed problem. Do you want your vote applied to the other candidate for whom you didn’t vote? The minority of Arizonans and such voters in 47 other states have been disenfranchised with “winner-take-all”.

More faulty premises which NPV claims are that “Spending time and money on you is how candidates show they care.” And that “Swing states receive more federal money.”
Federal largess is already a problem, why want more? We must keep ‘Arizona money in Arizona for Arizonans’. Side-stepping the intent of the Electoral College by using a new scheme for presidential preference elections to attract more federal money encourages state welfare and adds to an already incurable national debt. States must self-fund for valid emergencies, just as we do with homes and business. The 10th Amendment prohibits us from using Uncle Sam as a financier of last resort.

Decidedly, states not joining the NPV Convention will be ignored and their voters disenfranchised. So NPV is not a solution for a misperceived set of problems. Arizona issues will only be resolved in Congress, within the Constitution, not by a preference for a presidential candidate, who can say anything without accountability. What elected officials do is what counts and why NPV gets a failing grade.

Let’s perform due diligence, not just repeat what we’re told.

  1. Visit NO National Popular Vote at www.NoNationalPopularVote.wordpress.com/ for the rest of the story.
  2. Pass the online Resolution adjusted for your group at Legislative District Resolution Opposing National Popular Vote
  3. Download the PDF PowerPoint presentation to show your group or ask us to come and give one soon.

Please tell your legislators to make their votes count by opposing NPV bills HB2456 AND SB1218, and its dangerous cousins Open Primaries, the Top Two Primary and Dark Money ballot initiatives as bad schemes that only make matters worse.

Also, please CONTACT SEN. ANDY BIGGS TODAY at 602-926-4371 and/or EMAIL him at abiggs@azleg.gov to tell him to oppose SB1218.

Please forward this to your contacts

National Popular Vote Bogus Polling

NPV Polls

National Popular Vote Inc. is a 501(c)(4) non-profit corporation whose specific purpose is to study, analyze and educate the public regarding its proposal to implement a nationwide popular election of the President of the United States. In 2007-2009 they surveyed voters using Public Policy Polling, a liberal-bias polling firm with questionable reputation. They ran virtually the same poll in 41 other states and the District of Columbia.

Telephone Survey of 833 Arizona voters on July 2-3, 2015

1. “How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?”

In this July 2015 poll, 46% said the Republican nominee, 38% said the Democratic nominee, and 17% said some other party’s nominee.

2. “Do you prefer a system where the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states on a nationwide basis is elected President, or one like the one used in Nebraska and Maine where electoral voters are dispensed by Congressional district, or one in which all of the state’s electoral votes would be given to the statewide winner?”

In this question, 73% preferred the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states; 14% preferred that electoral votes be dispensed by congressional district; and 13% preferred that all of the state’s electoral votes go to the statewide winner (the existing “winner-take-all” rule).

BUT is Public Policy Polling (PPP) really scientific? Not according to these:

“But really, you should not take these polls seriously, and in fact they should teach educated poll consumers to be skeptical about all issue polling…it doesn’t occur to [consumers] that a pollster would take advantage of them by asking a question that assumed facts that do not exist. “People in general do not like to admit there are things they do not know. Answers to issue polling questions tend to vary a lot by what the pollster says before asking them. Digging through bad data and discovering that, hidden in the crosstabs, there is something that we can use to hit back at the “other team” does not suddenly make the data valid. ” — Dan McLaughlin, RedState.com

If you’re on the phone with Public Policy Polling, just hang up. Public Policy Polling doesn’t care about integrity when it comes to data. Don’t engage with them … and don’t take their polls seriously (they choose telephone respondents carefully instead of at random). — Matthias Shapiro is a software engineer, databases designer, genetics data hobbyist, and technical educator based in Seattle.

Pollsters, though, tend to judge one another based more on methodology than record. And for experts and competitors, the firm’s success remains difficult to explain. PPP doesn’t follow many of the industry’s best practices, like calling voters’ cell phones; the firm only calls landlines. It discards hundreds of respondents in an unusual process known as “random deletion.” And because PPP’s interviewers rely on lists of registered voters—rather than random digit dialing—and simply ask non-voters to hang up the phone, the firm can’t use census numbers to weight their sample, as many other pollsters do. This forces PPP to make more and more subjective, judgments about just who will be voting.

After examining PPP’s polls from 2012 and conducting a lengthy exchange with PPP’s director, we found that PPP withheld controversial elements of its methodology, to the extent it even has one, and treated its data inconsistently. The racial composition of PPP’s surveys was informed by whether respondents voted for Obama or John McCain in 2008, even though it wasn’t stated in its methodology. PPP then deleted the question from detailed releases to avoid criticism. Throughout its seemingly successful run, PPP used amateurish weighting techniques that distorted its samples—embracing a unique, ad hoc philosophy that, time and time again, seemed to save PPP from producing outlying results. The end result is unscientific and unsettling. –Nate Silver

Don’t it Make my Red State Blue…

EspressoPunditLogo

Don’t it Make my Red State Blue…

If you get your news from the Mainstream Media, you are unlikely to have noticed the massive shift to the right that the Nation has undergone during the Obama Presidency.

Gallup’s analysis of political party affiliation at the state level in 2015 finds that 20 states are solidly Republican or leaning Republican, compared with 14 solidly Democratic or leaning Democratic states. The remaining 16 are competitive. This is the first time in Gallup’s eight years of tracking partisanship by state that there have been more Republican than Democratic states. It also marks a dramatic shift from 2008, when Democratic strength nationally was its greatest in recent decades.

Naturally, the George Soroses of the world have a plan to combat this shift.  It goes something like this….  Let’s take Arizona’s electoral votes an give them to California.  There are a lot of smart people over there and I’m sure that they will choose wisely.

What?  You don’t like that plan?  Maybe Arizona’s delegates should be pledged to the candidate that actually won the election in Arizona?   What are you, some sort of “State’s Rights” Constitutional fundamentalist?  The Founding Fathers designed an electoral system that ensured that “States” got to choose the President…but what do dead white guys know anyway?  And besides, it is like TOTALLY unfair that Al Gore won the popular vote and didn’t get to be President.

Believe it or not, there’s a bill in Arizona that would codify the Soros plan.  Naturally you haven’t read about it because Laurie Roberts and EJ Montini are sitting there quietly, saying “OMG, like this could totally happen if we don’t ruin it….so let’s write column number 5,000 about Bob Stump’s text messages.”

Meanwhile, HB 2456–which has a ton of sponsors who should know better–is sailing through the process.

I wonder what else George Soros and the good folks from California should decide for us?

Popular vote v. Electoral College: Be careful what you wish for

SeeingRedLogo

Popular vote v. Electoral College: Be careful what you wish for

National Popular Vote is unconstitutional

Strong dosages of political showmanship are vying for our attention these days. A seemingly endless parade of presidential candidates, debates, caucuses and primaries take center stage as the crucial 2016 cycle approaches. We hear promises, sift through bravado and try to separate fact from blatant fiction. To add to the head spinning exhibitions are a rash of quick fixes, that actually create even more havoc. Arizona House Bill 2456 (national popular vote; interstate agreement) is such a measure — definitely worthy of your attention. Its Senate counterpart, identically named) is SB 1218.

This piece of legislation would require the popular vote for U.S. President to determine the winner, effectively relegating the Electoral College into political obscurity.

There are increasing election machinations to change the system put in place by our Founders to safeguard the election process — clearly defined in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause II, not to relegate small states into inconsequential obscurity.

Legislators contemplating support for this bill should heed the wisdom of these words: “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up.” America’s Founders strategically placed fences in an effort to balance power among the branches of the federal government and the states. This balance has served our nation well and it should not impetuously be cast aside.

The Republican Platform succinctly addresses this issue under the heading, The Continuing Importance of Protecting the Electoral College:

“We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College. We recognize that an unconstitutional effort to impose “national popular vote” would be a mortal threat to our federal system and a guarantee of corruption as every ballot box in every state would become a chance to steal the presidency.”

This video “The Popular Vote vs. the Electoral College,” courtesy of Prager University explains the complex issue and is important to watch. It takes less than five minutes of your time, but will educate you on the issues involved. Knowledge is power.

Click on the House and Senate bills and see if your state legislator is a sponsor. Then use this link to locate them and ask them why they are joining with Democrats on this disastrous legislation.  Act now. Time is short.

https://seeingredaz.wordpress.com/2016/02/08/popular-vote-v-electoral-college-be-careful-what-you-wish-for/

What’s an Election Superdelegate and Why Did Clinton Win Them?

–Unique to the Democratic Party. . .superdelegates! Clinton has same delegates as Sanders, save one. This is because special people in the Democrat party are allowed to vote above the popular vote, so their candidate gets delegates to the convention even though the people voting in the Democrat primary didn’t vote that way!:

“They are delegates to the party convention. . .members of the DNC and other state and federal elected officials . . .are allowed to endorse their own pick regardless of how their home state votes.

And this cycle, at least at the moment, they are overwhelmingly behind Clinton’s White House bid.

At the end of the New Hampshire tally Tuesday night, Sanders had amassed enough support from voters to earn 15 delegates, while Clinton grabbed just eight based on the ballot box.

But New Hampshire also has eight superdelegates. Six of them have endorsed Clinton, while two aren’t committed to either candidate. That means that Clinton tacked an extra six delegates on to the end.

In Iowa, the superdelegate picture was much the same. Clinton won by the narrowest of margins, but she snagged the support of six extra superdelegates. Sanders, who so far has only a dozen or so superdelegate endorsements in total compared to hundreds for Clinton, got none of those bonus points out of Iowa. (While Clinton has been endorsed by hundreds of super delegates, NBC News is only including in its total delegate count those superdelegates whose home states have already voted in the primary.)”

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/why-sanders-
new-hampshire-victory-wasn-t-so-huge-n516066

Rep. Ugenti-Rita Threatened

Ray Haines NPV

From a reputable source:

Rep. Ugenti-Rita Threatened

Rep. Ugenti-Rita was threatened by one of the speakers at the Elections Committee Hearing on HB2456 National Popular Vote. Ugenti-Rita rightly voted against the bill even though it passed in committee.

In passing, the individual promised, “We’re coming after you!”

Now we have to ask, how long must one hang out with people of this ilk before they realize they don’t want anything to do with them? This lack of respect is telling of the quality of people behind the National Popular Vote leftist movement.

Legislators need to get their names off HB2456 as sponsors or co-sponsors before the name calling starts.