<?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 on: Drew Linzer&#8217;s poll tracker</title>
	<atom:link href="http://redbluerichpoor.com/blog/2008/09/drew-linzers-poll-tracker/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://redbluerichpoor.com/blog/2008/09/drew-linzers-poll-tracker/</link>
	<description>Why Americans Vote the Way they Do</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:59:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: susan</title>
		<link>http://redbluerichpoor.com/blog/2008/09/drew-linzers-poll-tracker/comment-page-1/#comment-766</link>
		<dc:creator>susan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:47:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://redbluerichpoor.com/blog/?p=80#comment-766</guid>
		<description>To simply make every vote in every state politically relevant and equal in presidential elections, support the National Popular Vote bill.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (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 National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 21 legislative chambers (one house in CO, AR, ME, NC, and WA, and two houses in MD, IL, HI, CA, MA, NJ, RI, and VT). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.

see  http://www.NationalPopularVote.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To simply make every vote in every state politically relevant and equal in presidential elections, support the National Popular Vote bill.</p>
<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). The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (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 National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 21 legislative chambers (one house in CO, AR, ME, NC, and WA, and two houses in MD, IL, HI, CA, MA, NJ, RI, and VT). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.</p>
<p>see  <a href="http://www.NationalPopularVote.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.NationalPopularVote.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eduardo Leoni</title>
		<link>http://redbluerichpoor.com/blog/2008/09/drew-linzers-poll-tracker/comment-page-1/#comment-757</link>
		<dc:creator>Eduardo Leoni</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 03:24:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://redbluerichpoor.com/blog/?p=80#comment-757</guid>
		<description>&lt;cite&gt; The first time I set up the model, I just used the posterior from one poll as the prior on the next. Problem was that the variance of the priors got so small after a while that there didn’t seem to be enough flexibility to capture trends when they did seem to arise. &lt;/cite&gt;

This is only the case  if you assume the variance to be known, right?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><cite> The first time I set up the model, I just used the posterior from one poll as the prior on the next. Problem was that the variance of the priors got so small after a while that there didn’t seem to be enough flexibility to capture trends when they did seem to arise. </cite></p>
<p>This is only the case  if you assume the variance to be known, right?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
