Nevada governor vetoed the National Popular vote

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..

it depends. If demonrats get their way and only Liberal/Demonrat/Socialist/Communist SCOTUS would be elected and then they would rule against the U.S. Constitution.

originally posted by: TonyS
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...
...

And every one of those jurisdictions is infringing on the right for state voters to decide who should run for POTUS. Basically let-wing idiots are arguing that "the votes of voters living in those jurisdictions/states does not matter, and only the votes of voters from New Murder York, and Calhellfornia matter...

Those jurisdictions are simply stating they don't care about the voters who go against the will of demonrats.

originally posted by: TonyS
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.

So, they do a survey of 800 Ohio voters and you want to claim that is the opinion of a majority of voters from Ohio?... As if the will of the voters mattered at all when you admitted it doesn't anymore in certain demonrat jurisdictions... The demonrats in those jurisdictions you mentioned already show that they don't care about what their voters really want...

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

Of course you would. You simply don't care about the opinion of voters who DARE vote against whom your masters in Calhellfornia and New Murder York want to vote for.

An argument is easily made that every jurisdiction, or state that decides to skirt the EC is denying the rights of voters in every state, since in order for the EC to work properly EVERYONE has to follow the rules...

originally posted by: TonyS
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.

In other words, and like many of us have surmised, you don't care about voters who vote against your will. You only want to count the votes of people who vote like you... Spoken like a true authoritarian/dictator wannabe.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Uh, well.......you got at least one thing wrong; I voted against HRC. I live outside a Democrat run city and I live in a Red State. I am steadfastly opposed to everything Cali and NY Democrats stand for.

But I recognize two important truths. As far as the US is concerned, you and I and people like us who voted against HRC are seriously a minority and becoming more so with every illegal border crossing. The second truth is that the entire system of governance at the Federal level is entirely f*cked up. If the Dems can end run the EC, the whole system will implode as people like me in fly-over country will refuse to be governed by NYC and CA! IMHO the sooner this system blows up, the better.