<?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/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Wisconsin Must Lead</title>
	<atom:link href="http://proletariat.wordpress.com/2007/07/28/wisconsin-must-lead/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://proletariat.wordpress.com/2007/07/28/wisconsin-must-lead/</link>
	<description>To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 10 May 2009 15:56:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Hatin On Proportional Representation &#171; The Proletariat</title>
		<link>http://proletariat.wordpress.com/2007/07/28/wisconsin-must-lead/#comment-2405</link>
		<dc:creator>Hatin On Proportional Representation &#171; The Proletariat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:46:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://proletariat.nateweb.info/2007/07/28/wisconsin-must-lead/#comment-2405</guid>
		<description>[...] proportional representation. About a year ago I wrote a post on proportional representation titled Why Wisconsin Must Lead. The argument was for an IRV based system called STV in which electors would be apportioned based [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] proportional representation. About a year ago I wrote a post on proportional representation titled Why Wisconsin Must Lead. The argument was for an IRV based system called STV in which electors would be apportioned based [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blog Bunker Talking Points &#171; The Proletariat</title>
		<link>http://proletariat.wordpress.com/2007/07/28/wisconsin-must-lead/#comment-2346</link>
		<dc:creator>Blog Bunker Talking Points &#171; The Proletariat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:56:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://proletariat.nateweb.info/2007/07/28/wisconsin-must-lead/#comment-2346</guid>
		<description>[...] While more attention has been given to a National Popular Vote, less has been given to a proportional version of Instant Runoff Voting. Single transferable vote, would closely resemble the Iowa Caucuses. Like with IRV, if your first choice is not one of the top two vote getters, then your second and third choices are allocated until one canidate has a majority. In an electoral college based system states can choose to allocate electoral votes proportionally based on the popular vote. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] While more attention has been given to a National Popular Vote, less has been given to a proportional version of Instant Runoff Voting. Single transferable vote, would closely resemble the Iowa Caucuses. Like with IRV, if your first choice is not one of the top two vote getters, then your second and third choices are allocated until one canidate has a majority. In an electoral college based system states can choose to allocate electoral votes proportionally based on the popular vote. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Democratic Caucus and STV &#171; The Proletariat</title>
		<link>http://proletariat.wordpress.com/2007/07/28/wisconsin-must-lead/#comment-1989</link>
		<dc:creator>Democratic Caucus and STV &#171; The Proletariat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:18:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://proletariat.nateweb.info/2007/07/28/wisconsin-must-lead/#comment-1989</guid>
		<description>[...] electoral college votes than the current winner take all or a national popular vote. I even wrote a post that used Wisconsin&#8217;s ten electoral votes as an example of how STV or proportional [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] electoral college votes than the current winner take all or a national popular vote. I even wrote a post that used Wisconsin&#8217;s ten electoral votes as an example of how STV or proportional [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Why the NPV Takes us No Where &#171; The Proletariat</title>
		<link>http://proletariat.wordpress.com/2007/07/28/wisconsin-must-lead/#comment-1977</link>
		<dc:creator>Why the NPV Takes us No Where &#171; The Proletariat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:00:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://proletariat.nateweb.info/2007/07/28/wisconsin-must-lead/#comment-1977</guid>
		<description>[...] for every 10 % of the state popular vote. I go more in depth with how it would actually work in Wisconsin Must Lead. In addition since its a preferential voting system all votes are counted not just those for the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] for every 10 % of the state popular vote. I go more in depth with how it would actually work in Wisconsin Must Lead. In addition since its a preferential voting system all votes are counted not just those for the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: California GOP Has the Right Idea &#171; The Proletariat</title>
		<link>http://proletariat.wordpress.com/2007/07/28/wisconsin-must-lead/#comment-781</link>
		<dc:creator>California GOP Has the Right Idea &#171; The Proletariat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2007 00:09:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://proletariat.nateweb.info/2007/07/28/wisconsin-must-lead/#comment-781</guid>
		<description>[...] far the most democratic way of delegating electoral votes would be statewide through proportional representation. I have a feeling neither Democrats nor Republicans will be pushing that reform through anytime [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] far the most democratic way of delegating electoral votes would be statewide through proportional representation. I have a feeling neither Democrats nor Republicans will be pushing that reform through anytime [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hytpothetical My Ass &#171; The Proletariat</title>
		<link>http://proletariat.wordpress.com/2007/07/28/wisconsin-must-lead/#comment-730</link>
		<dc:creator>Hytpothetical My Ass &#171; The Proletariat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:23:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://proletariat.nateweb.info/2007/07/28/wisconsin-must-lead/#comment-730</guid>
		<description>[...] States may also, like Colorado entertained some time back, split up the electoral college through proportional representation. Obama is also wrong about a third party or independent needing the 270 electoral votes. They may [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] States may also, like Colorado entertained some time back, split up the electoral college through proportional representation. Obama is also wrong about a third party or independent needing the 270 electoral votes. They may [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
