Nevada governor vetoed the National Popular vote

Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak Vetoes National Popular Vote Bill

Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak (D) on Thursday vetoed a bill which would have pledged the state’s six electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote for President of the United States.

Finally, someone really understands what this movement means:

“Once effective, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could diminish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests and force Nevada’s electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, rather than the candidate Nevadans choose,” a statement via Sisolak reads. “I recognize that many of my fellow Nevadans may disagree on this point and I appreciate the legislature’s thoughtful consideration of this important issue. As Nevada’s governor, I am obligated to make such decisions according to my own conscience. In cases like this, where Nevada’s interests could diverge from the interests of large states, I will always stand up for Nevada.”

A national popular vote system basically just means that California and New York elect the president, and any other state better hope that their interests won't ever diverge with those two areas.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

But... but... muh democracy?

Constitutional Representative Republic > Direct Democracy

Freaks me out that any legislator would even introduce such a bill.

Then again, that speaks not to quality of the legislators so much as to the absolute ignorance of the voters.

Any State that would pass this would end up at the SC. Once there, the constitution wins.

End of game.

Fred..

originally posted by: fredrodgers1960
Any State that would pass this would end up at the SC. Once there, the constitution wins.

End of game.

Fred..

I can't fathom why any small state (like Delaware or Vermont) would want to go with this scheme. They're guaranteeing that no presidential candidate will pay even the slightest attention to them.

a reply to: fredrodgers1960

Any State that would pass this would end up at the SC. Once there, the constitution wins.

Actually, the Constitution says little about the choosing of the electors... it pretty much leaves that up to the states. A Supreme Court decision would likely favor the states.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: fredrodgers1960

Any State that would pass this would end up at the SC. Once there, the constitution wins.

Actually, the Constitution says little about the choosing of the electors... it pretty much leaves that up to the states. A Supreme Court decision would likely favor the states.

TheRedneck

Slippery slope as this threatens the very foundation of America.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

But... but... muh democracy?

Luckily we here in America live in a Republic .......

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: fredrodgers1960

Any State that would pass this would end up at the SC. Once there, the constitution wins.

Actually, the Constitution says little about the choosing of the electors... it pretty much leaves that up to the states. A Supreme Court decision would likely favor the states.

TheRedneck

The electors have to reflect the vote counts right, otherwise why have them? Its a undermining of how election for president works.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: fredrodgers1960

Any State that would pass this would end up at the SC. Once there, the constitution wins.

Actually, the Constitution says little about the choosing of the electors... it pretty much leaves that up to the states. A Supreme Court decision would likely favor the states.

TheRedneck

It's not as clear-cut as that. However they award the electors, it's supposed to represent the will of the voting population of that state. You can certainly make an argument that this scheme has the potential to subvert the will of many states' voters.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: fredrodgers1960

Any State that would pass this would end up at the SC. Once there, the constitution wins.

Actually, the Constitution says little about the choosing of the electors... it pretty much leaves that up to the states. A Supreme Court decision would likely favor the states.

TheRedneck

It's not as clear-cut as that. However they award the electors, it's supposed to represent the will of the voting population of that state. You can certainly make an argument that this scheme has the potential to subvert the will of many states' voters.

People also forget that Congress counts the votes before the election is official.

What if a motion is made to not count those votes?

Presidential election trumps other federal elections.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I can't speak for the status of any relevant Supreme Court decisions on the matter, but the bill It has been enacted into law in 15 jurisdictions with 189 electoral votes (CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NM, NY, RI, VT, WA).
See:www.nationalpopularvote.com...

As an example of "progress" of this bill, we can look at Ohio where a similar bill is now under consideration. We find it has wide support among Ohio voters.

www.nationalpopularvote.com...

A survey of 800 Ohio voters conducted on December 21-22, 2008 showed 70% overall support for a national popular vote for President. By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 81% for a national popular vote among Democrats, 65% among Republicans, and 61% among Others. By age, support for a national popular vote was 73% among 18-29 year olds, 60% among 30-45 year olds, 67% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65. By gender, support for a national popular vote was 84% among women and 54% among men. By race, support for a national popular vote was 72% among whites (representing 85% of respondents), 62% among African Americans (representing 11% of respondents), 75% among Hispanics (representing 1% of respondents), and 61% among Others (representing 3% of respondents). The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 1/2%.

Frankly, I'm all in favor of this because it would greatly simplify the process of electing US Presidents.

US Presidential elections have become obscenely expensive, drawn out affairs which produce, at best, dubious results. The passing of this bill would mean that the only elections that would truly matter would be the Democrat Party Primary elections. Then, the General Election in November would merely be a "confirmation" process, seating the winner of the Democrat Party Primary elections. That's much like the situation in all of the US major Metro Areas, Cities such as NYC, Chicago, LA, etc. where Mayors are actually chosen in whatever preliminary Democrat Party Primary Selection process determines which Democrat will run for Mayor in the General Election.

a reply to: TonyS

A lot of ignorant people.

No, I refuse to accept this as Mob Rule isn't how we operate, it's basically common sense.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: fredrodgers1960

Any State that would pass this would end up at the SC. Once there, the constitution wins.

Actually, the Constitution says little about the choosing of the electors... it pretty much leaves that up to the states. A Supreme Court decision would likely favor the states.

TheRedneck

But the electors are supposed to choose who their vote goes to. It would be like the government telling you who to vote for.

So I am not sure which way the SC would go.

a reply to: TonyS

Would you be equally in favor if it guaranteed a Republican president every year?

originally posted by: fredrodgers1960
Any State that would pass this would end up at the SC. Once there, the constitution wins.

End of game.

Fred..

We can only hope? I mean a judge ruling based on their feelings versus the actual law? Impossible...

originally posted by: incoserv
Freaks me out that any legislator would even introduce such a bill.

Then again, that speaks not to quality of the legislators so muchas to the absolute ignorance of the voters.

Which is why democracy is inferior to anarchy...

At least Anarchy doesn't empower imbeciles to do imbecilic things at unprecedented scales...with impunity mind you.

a reply to: Sly1one

Sure it does. Any imbecile can do anything they want. There are no rules if there is no one empowered to enforce them.

originally posted by: Sly1one

originally posted by: incoserv
Freaks me out that any legislator would even introduce such a bill.

Then again, that speaks not to quality of the legislators so muchas to the absolute ignorance of the voters.

Which is why democracy is inferior to anarchy...

At least Anarchy doesn't empower imbeciles to do imbecilic things at unprecedented scales...with impunity mind you.

But democracy does tend to protect the imbeciles form their own imbecility. Which, give the principle of natural selection, may not be a good thing ...