Congrats to supporters of Ron Paul. Your efforts have forced 30 states to agree to count write-in votes.

Friendly States and their electoral college count!!!!!!

Alabama=9
Alaska=3
California=55
Connecticut=7
Colorado=9
Iowa=6
Kansas=6
Kentucky=8
Maine=4
Maryland=11
Massachusetts=11
Minnesota=17
Mississippi=6
Missouri=10
Nebraska=5
New Hampshire=4
New Jersey=15
New York=29
North Dakota=3
North Carolina=15
Oregon=7
Rhode Island=4
Pennsylvania=20
Vermont=3
Washington=12
Washington DC=3
Wisconsin=10
Wyoming=10

Unknown potentials:

Florida=29
Hawaii=4

=========================================


The right to have your vote counted, and counted clearly is included in
the below court case, so even if your State claims the right not to
count your vote they are wrong. Voter tampering is treason.

Excerpts from: Reynolds v. Sims (1964), 377 U.S. 533


“Obviously included within the right to choose, secured by the
Constitution, is the right of qualified voters within a state to cast
their ballots and have them counted. . . .” (From Part II)“29. There is
more to the right to vote than the right to mark a piece of paper and
drop it in a box or the right to pull a lever in a voting booth. The
right to vote includes the right to have the ballot counted. . . . It
also includes the right to have the vote counted at full value without
dilution or discount. . . . That federally protected right suffers
substantial dilution . . . [where a] favored group has full voting
strength . . . [and] [t]he groups not in favor have their votes
discounted.” [Emphasis added.]“40. No one would deny that the equal
protection clause would . . . prohibit a law that would expressly give
certain citizens a half-vote and others a full vote. . . . [T]he
constitutionally guaranteed right to vote and the right to have one's
vote counted clearly imply the policy that state election systems, no
matter what their form, should be designed to give approximately equal
weight to each vote cast. . . . [A] state legislature cannot deny
eligible voters the right to vote for Congressmen and the right to have
their vote counted. It can no more destroy the effectiveness of their
vote in part and no more accomplish this in the name of "apportionment"
than under any other name. [Emphasis added]”“Undoubtedly, the right of
suffrage is a fundamental matter [p562] in a free and democratic
society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free
and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political
rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must
be carefully and meticulously scrutinized. Almost a century ago, in Yick
Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, the Court referred to "the political
franchise of voting" as "a fundamental political right, because
preservative of all rights." 118 U.S. at 370. [Emphasis added]…..And, if
a State should provide that the votes of citizens in one part of the
State should be given two times, or five times, or 10 times the weight
of votes of citizens in another part of the State, it could hardly be
contended that the right to vote of those residing in the disfavored
areas had not been effectively diluted. It would appear extraordinary to
suggest that a State could be constitutionally permitted to enact a law
providing that certain of the State's voters could vote two, five, or
10 times for their legislative representatives, while voters living
elsewhere could vote only once. And it is inconceivable that a state law
to the effect that, in counting votes for legislators, the votes of
citizens in one part of the State would be multiplied by two, five, or
10, while the votes of persons in another area would be counted only at
face value, could be constitutionally sustainable. Of course, the effect
of [p563] state legislative districting schemes which give the same
number of representatives to unequal numbers of constituents is
identical. [n40] Overweighting and overvaluation of the votes of those
living here has the certain effect of dilution and undervaluation of the
votes of those living there. The resulting discrimination against those
individual voters living in disfavored areas is easily demonstrable
mathematically. Their right to vote is simply not the same right to vote
as that of those living in a favored part of the State. Two, five, or
10 of them must vote before the effect of their voting is equivalent to
that of their favored neighbor. Weighting the votes of citizens
differently, by any method or means, merely because of where they happen
to reside, hardly seems justifiable. One must be ever aware that the
Constitution forbids "sophisticated, as well as simple-minded, modes of
discrimination." Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268, 275; Gomillion v.
Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 342. As we stated in Wesberry v. Sanders,
supra: [emphasis added]We do not believe that the Framers of the
Constitution intended to permit the same vote-diluting discrimination to
be accomplished through the device of districts containing widely
varied numbers of inhabitants. To say that a vote is worth [p564] more
in one district than in another would . . . run counter to our
fundamental ideas of democratic government. . . . [n41] “