Nevada approves bill that requires electoral votes to go to winner of popular vote


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


 

If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

Nevada’s state senate has approved a bill that will require its electoral votes in a presidential election to go to winner of popular vote.

The governor needs to sign the bill, but that is expected.

Assembly Bill 186, which passed the Senate on a 12-8 vote, would bring Nevada into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an agreement between participating states to cast their electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote.

If signed as expected by Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak, Nevada would become the 16th jurisdiction to join the compact, along with 14 states and the District of Columbia. The compact would take effect after states totaling 270 electoral votes, and with Nevada, the total would reach 195.

It appears to me that this Democratic effort to nullify the electoral college is going to eventually take effect. Once that happens, there will never be another Republican president, as the heavily Democratic and high population states of New York and California are going to always put the popular vote in the hands of Democrats. Essentially, they will have rigged the elections to guarantee their victory, much as they have done in California by eliminating parties in the voting.

Posted on the train from Barmouth to London.

Share

35 comments

  • Brad

    Note that the popular vote compact only requires a mere plurality of the popular vote to win, it does not require a majority of the vote. No doubt quite purposely. Since only three Democratic candidates have won a majority of the popular vote since WWII: LBJ, Carter, and Obama.

    Perhaps the most important feature of the Electoral College is the requirement that the winner must have a majority of the votes of the Electoral College. That helps to prevent any rump regional faction of our Nation from seizing the Presidency.

    The fact the interstate compact does not require a majority, gives up the game. The people behind the scheme are running a con on the Nation.

  • Cotour

    What else besides a con would the Democrats in their desperation be running?

    The ignorance and emotional nature of the people is the Democrats only ally. And so that is what must somehow be addressed.

  • Cotour

    And then we coincidentally have this is the news feed today.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/iq-rates-are-dropping-many-developed-countries-doesn-t-bode-ncna1008576

    Maybe the future belongs to the ignorant and the Democrats? How chilling.

  • Sean Long

    The Electoral College was established so that populous cities or states couldnt completely control the outcome of a Presidential election. In all their “great” wisdom the democrats are now going to undo that…..? The majority of this country have become sheep that dont understand the big picture or even know whats best for themselves. I await the next phase when Democrats start giving away more “free” stuff at the taxpayers expense.

  • Cotour

    Newt lays it down. “We must take them on head on”. Biden a “Doofus”. “The hard core left believes things that I think are crazy”.

    https://youtu.be/okD_Dk7b66E

    The Democrats in their desperation will do what ever they have to do in order to acquire or retain power. ANYTHING. Why? Because they really have nothing else.

  • Foxbat

    in the long run, this may result in the senate being controlled by the small states and the president and house by the large states. Permanent divided government

  • Andi

    Sure beats me as to why the small states are willingly giving up their influence to the likes of California and New York. The only saving grace here is that the compact allows for states to withdraw, and we can only hope that they come to their senses.

  • wodun

    Brad
    May 22, 2019 at 5:31 am

    Note that the popular vote compact only requires a mere plurality of the popular vote to win, it does not require a majority of the vote. No doubt quite purposely.

    Yup!

    Who can say how things would turn out if the rules are changed? It isn’t something I want to contemplate, although, I hope the shenanigans would not make it past SCOTUS, but that depends entirely on whether or not we have justices who adhere to the constitution or to marxist ideology.

  • Steve

    The Democrats, either by plan or ignorance, are setting the stage for another civil war. And there are plenty of people who would be happy to take it to them. There’s still lots of time to prevent that at the ballot box.

  • m d dmill

    The only way this can work logically is if “RED” states go along with it.
    If republicans/conservatives are that stupid, then maybe they deserve to die.
    All of the states that have enacted this scheme voted Clinton over Trump in the last Pres. election (mostly overwhelmingly, although Nevada was much closer). This means that this scheme, at the present time, actually hurts the blue state cause, since they would gain more from a winner take all electoral college method in those states!
    Does anyone see a flaw in this statement?

  • wayne

    Steve–
    Good stuff.

    >Article 5 Meeting of States; the last, legal, non-violent method. to rein in the Federal government.
    (>After that, all bets are off.)

  • M Puckett

    I suspect SCOTUS will [deleted] this if it makes it that far.

  • M Puckett: You I think are a new commenter. Please be aware that I do not allow obscenities on Behind the Black. I have deleted your use of the four-letter word. Do it again and you will be suspended for a week. Do it a third time and you will be banned for good.

    See this post for my reasoning: No obscenities on Behind the Black

  • pzatchok

    https://usconstitution.net/consttop_elec.html

    “In most states, the winner of the state election gets all of the state’s electoral votes. In two states, Maine and Nebraska, however, the winner of the state only gets two votes, one representing each Senator. The other electoral votes are distributed according to the winner of each congressional district in the state.”

    Doesn’t this mean we already have a popular vote in most states?

    All these states voting to join a ‘popular vote’ movement means nothing. It will not change the electoral collage in any way.

    That is not how the US constitution is changed. They must propose a bill to change the constitution and pass it in both the house and senate by a 2/3 majority, then the president must sign it, then the states must ratify it and agree to follow the change.
    The last time the Electoral collage and the Presidential election system was changed was by the 12th amendment. How are amendments made and past?

    Leave it to the Dems to not follow the rules and to try to sham one past the people.
    Almost like signing the Paris climate accords and then not following them.

  • pzatchok

    I would like to see the states change their electoral collage laws so that electors are appointed proportionately to each candidate running.

    That way third parties can even get national votes.

    This would better represent a popular vote.

    ( no more winner takes all )

  • wayne

    Article 5, US Constitution

    “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

  • Max

    Wayne, I think this is the only thing I disagree with you on. A convention of the states is a noble idea, unfortunately people less than noble, (much less than the founding fathers) will be in charge and the 10,000 page document that they will work out full of mumbo-jumbo and legalese compromised to the point that everybody gets something out of the new “law of the land”… If you could read it you would not understand it… (you have to pass it first to find out what’s in it anyway)
    Old oaths to uphold the Constitution will be null and void, that which unifies us will be broken and it’s every man for himself. All established law will be undone awaiting new supreme court rulings that will change with the blowing wind.

    If they work to undermine the constitution we have now, why would they follow a new constitution? There is no honor among thieves. The lawmakers break their own laws knowing full well they are doing so. They think themselves exempt because the lawmakers are above the law.

    Meet the enemy;
    “fellow travelers in the con-con movement, each of which is a registered “founding member” of the “Move to Amend” coalition.
    Alliance for Democracy
    Center for Media and Democracy
    Code Pink
    Independent Progressive Politics Network
    Progressive Democrats of America
    Sierra Club
    Vermont for Single Payer
    Mind you, hundreds more groups “committed to social and economic justice, ending corporate rule, and building a vibrant democracy” are gathered under this umbrella.
    This hardly seems to be a corps that most Levin listeners would be happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with in the fight for a “convention of the states.” In fairness, these allies likely don’t share their conservative cohorts’ love and loyalty to the Constitution.”

    https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17402-socialists-and-soros-fight-for-article-v-convention

    Sean Long said;
    “I await the next phase when Democrats start giving away more “free” stuff at the taxpayers expense.”
    There is only one thing more that I can think of that they will suggest giving away for free, SEX.
    All other primal urges and needs are now “rights” in which you are entitled to, without “work” just for being born.
    Don’t laugh
    Under sharia law a woman must give sex to her lawful owner or husband.

    ( technically there’s no such thing as “free”. If you’re getting it for free, it was charity, stealing, or enslavement)

  • wayne

    Max–

    https://conventionofstates.com/

    “Article V of the U.S. Constitution gives states the power to call a Convention of States to propose amendments. It takes 34 states to call the convention and 38 to ratify any amendments that are proposed. Our convention would only allow the states to discuss amendments that, “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints, and place term limits on federal officials.”

  • wayne

    “Mark Levin and Jim DeMint talk Convention of States”
    C-SPAN2 -2017
    https://youtu.be/XMmLdjfQRVI
    16:34

  • pzatchok

    Wayne.

    Do you really think the dems are calling for a convention of states?

    First off think of the organization required to even get it started.
    A representative of each state must be elected to be sent to this convention. Otherwise it just looks like a bunch of old drunks getting together to complain about the government. The people need to choose them to make it legitimate.

    Right now the Dems can not even get enough votes to hold impeachment hearings let alone enough popular support for a convention.

  • wayne

    pzatchok–
    The dems just want to rule by decree.
    They wouldn’t know how to actually follow the Law.

    Referencing the Article 5 Movement; we have 13 States already in the bag (if I’m not mistaken) and there is Model legislative language being followed so everyone will know the rules and the scope before hand.
    The total upside to a Meeting of Sates, it bypasses the federal government completely, they play zero role. Each State legislature would pick delegates and charge them with specific instructions.

    Max– a Meeting of States does not imply a ‘rewrite of the Constitution,’ >>”Our convention would only allow the states to discuss amendments that, “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints, and place term limits on federal officials.”

    This is the last, legal, nonviolent way to reign in the Feds. If it should fail, I would put forth that kinetic-action will eventually be required, and it will happen way sooner than anyone suspects.
    These people won’t stop unless they are held to account. (They already ignore huge swaths of the Constitution, and I fully expect them to ignore any restraint’s imposed onto them, at which point it becomes a free fire zone, so to speak.)

  • wayne

    Jordan Peterson/ Akira the Don
    The Mathew Principle
    “To Those Who Have Everything….”
    May 9, 2019
    https://youtu.be/68X3w6uFwyw
    5:34

    “To those who have everything, more will be given. And from those who have nothing, everything will be taken.”

  • pzatchok

    During a constitutional convention whats to stop the rest of the states from attending and attempting to take over the convention to pass their own amendments?

  • wayne

    pzatchok–
    check out the COS project web-page for details. (They held a day long simulation a few years ago, to help iron out procedural details.)
    >>It’s the initial enabling legislation (from each State) that outlines the Topic & scope of a Meeting of States.
    The COS project has Model legislation written, and so far every State that has gone forward has used basically the same language in their respective authorizing legislation.
    {“Our convention would only allow the states to discuss amendments that, “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints, and place term limits on federal officials.”} Each of the State delegate’s would be charged with specific instruction’s from their Legislature, and can be recalled at any time for deviating from their proscribed duties.
    Article 5, is essentially the Tyranny Escape clause— it allows the separate & sovereign States, who created the federal government, to act collectively (and legally) to reign in the federal government. The federal Congress is completely by-passed and they play no role.

    We have 12 States in the bag already, as that number increases the left will go even more nuts.
    A Convention of States, is not a constitutional-convention. Be highly leery of anyone who attacks this movement from that angle.

  • pzatchok

    What will force the established government from just ignoring anything that is passed.

    As for the three goals.
    I could write an amendment that instead of actually reducing the limit of federal powers expands it. It limits the powers, just at a higher level than we already have.
    The same with fiscal restraints. “We have imposed fiscal restraints the likes of the world has never even dreamed of'”. (we left the phrase’ except in the case of emergencies;’)
    As for the state legislation picking ans sending people they choose. You don’t trust politicians now, why would you trust them to send the people you think they should? And with orders to write something you intend them to.

    How does this convention and its final outcome fit in with the new lefts idea of the popular vote? This convention is far from a “popular” movement.

    Essentially our civil war was started after a states convention.

  • wayne

    pzatchok–
    No idea what the left wants, except for absolute power.
    (it was progressive republicans and democrat’s that stuck us with Income tax, and direct-election of federal senators. They breached 2 firewalls in a very short time.)

    Article 5 is quite clear; Constitutional Amendment’s can be initiated at the federal level, and then ratified (or not) by the States, or the States can meet together (sans federal government involvement, they play no part except to announce that the States are holding a meeting of States,) propose Amendment’s and then ratify them (or not.)
    ((tangentially– the (federal) Judicial Branch effectively changes the Constitution every time they issue a hair-brained opinion. ))

    We need to decide– do we believe in Federalism, or don’t we? The separate & sovereign States, created the Federal Government. They work for us, not the other way around.
    The center of the Universe, is not supposed to be, and never was historically, the District of Columbia.

    I’d refer you to the COS main webpage for technical details.

    in the meantime….

    Convention of States Explained in 3 Minutes
    December 31, 2016
    https://youtu.be/oVQH0JbwIgA
    3:25

  • wayne

    Mark Levin Endorses Convention of States Project
    keynote speech at Convention of States
    November 2015
    https://youtu.be/n3o_wSZbrJY
    34:35

  • wayne

    “How a Convention of States Will Work”
    Convention of States Project
    May 2016
    https://youtu.be/pycWf2UShbQ
    (1:26:25)

  • wayne

    Referencing the above link:

    17:00 How is the convention’s agenda defined? How do we know?
    23:20 What happens when 34 states pass identical resolutions and trigger Article V power?
    27:30 Who will select the commissioners to the convention?
    31:40 How will the states be represented? How will they vote?
    33:15 How will the convention’s legislative rules work?
    37:50 What kind of reforms will be discussed/proposed?
    41:20 What happens once proposals are passed?
    43:30 The Safeguards
    52:50 Audience question: Could the courts corrupt the process?
    58:00 Audience question: Can we trust state legislators?
    1:04:30 Audience question: What’s the timeline? Could litigation slow it down?
    1:13:55 Audience question: What if some states leave the convention?
    1:16:20 Audience question: How could a restoration of the Commerce Clause affect drug legalization?
    1:18:10 Audience question: What are some other groups working in this sphere?
    1:21:20 Audience question: Can we tie spending limits to a balanced budget amendment?

  • wayne

    Mark Levin
    “Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America”
    C-Span Book TV, via Heritage Foundation
    2-15-2005
    (excerpt)
    https://youtu.be/zJF2qoCKfFE
    35:26

  • Max

    I just got back from a family reunion where my retired schoolteacher Sister had much to say about an article 5 convention. The first thing we need to do is to guarantee free speech… Swear words I asked? Of course she said all publications and websites must allow it. Unless it advocates violence and terrorism… So speech must be regulated to prevent NAZI conservatism… Oh and global warming deniers must be imprisoned.
    I said; you cannot in prison people for what they believe. She said you can if it’s destroying the planet. That cannot be allowed. We will take away the guns (Second Amendment) to prevent them from fighting back causing a Civil War. There’s more of us than them. Only our vote will count.
    Then she quoted Crosby stills and Nash, rejoice! Rejoice! We have no choice!

    Good resource material including the opinion of many constitutional professors from universities across the country. Their opinion it’s mostly negative because anything could happen. Read them for yourself. Once started, this process may never end.
    https://www.commoncause.org/resource/u-s-constitution-threatened-as-article-v-convention-movement-nears-success/#

    One of many articles that are well thought out about article 5 convention.
    https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/consideration-convention-propose-amendments-under-article-v-the-us

    I remember an interview on the radio where the chosen representative from Utah participated in the mock convention. He said it took weeks to lay out the rules for how this convention will conduct it’s self and the issues that it would tackle. On the first day of opening the convention, they voted to suspend the rules…

    This will be an opportunity that the world will not pass up. Billions will be spent by foreign countries to influence the outcome in their favor, our future decided by the biggest corporations and the highest bidders.
    I also fantasize that true patriots with the knowledge of history and governance would repair and modernize the inadequacies taken advantage of by our government and the courts, but we both know that the chosen people making the decisions will most likely be popular TV stars with no knowledge of the law and of history.

    PS. 4 liberal states recended the article 5 authorization to trick conservative states to consider it. It worked. Five more conservative states have passed it.
    California has openly declared that the convention will be ran by fair democracy, in this way they can control the outcome. (they have the numbers by population alone)

    What we have now, with all the holes punched in it, is the best the world has ever seen. Let’s fix what we have by enforcing the laws on the books. Throwing it away and starting from scratch is not the solution.
    I have no faith in human nature, and all the good intentions will only lead to a place I do not want to be in…

  • Cotour

    We need people much dumber than these geniuses to save the country..

    https://youtu.be/dGiSNPYj_iU

  • wayne

    Cotour-
    enjoyed the movie, didn’t really get into the series.

    Max–
    Let your Sister know she’s in ‘good’ company– the John Birch Society hates the idea of an Article 5 Meeting as well.
    “lets fix what we have by enforcing the laws on the books”— you mean, like enforcing the 16th Amendment (income tax)? Or the 17th Amendment (direct election of federal Senators)?
    I’m not here to convince you, I’m just here to say: it’s the last, legal, non-violent way to alter the balance of power with the federal government. We either believe in Federalism, or we don’t. We either use the tools we were given, or we sit back and let the country crumble.

    Gil Scott-Heron –
    “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised”
    https://youtu.be/vwSRqaZGsPw
    3:07

  • wayne

    Jordan Peterson:
    “Embrace your Shadow because its strength can guarantee Peace”
    https://youtu.be/tskL4Ds66Yk
    3:45

  • Edward

    From Max’s discussion with his sister: “The first thing we need to do is to guarantee free speech… Swear words I asked? Of course she said all publications and websites must allow it. Unless it advocates violence and terrorism… So speech must be regulated to prevent NAZI conservatism… Oh and global warming deniers must be imprisoned. I said; you cannot in prison people for what they believe. She said you can if it’s destroying the planet. That cannot be allowed. We will take away the guns (Second Amendment) to prevent them from fighting back causing a Civil War. There’s more of us than them. Only our vote will count.

    Reinforcing the left’s concept that free speech is supposed to be only for those who have opinions that match the left’s opinions — and that we all must conform to the kind of speech that the left likes, whether we agree with it or not. Otherwise: jail time (read: “re-education camps”). Only one vote counts: the left’s.

    No wonder they are so up in arms (not quite literally) about Trump’s triumph at the polls.

    This will be an opportunity that the world will not pass up. Billions will be spent by foreign countries to influence the outcome in their favor, our future decided by the biggest corporations and the highest bidders.

    This is different from how it works now?

    At least with a new — and temporary — system in place, we have a chance for change before the foreigners and biggest corporations figure out how to corrupt it.

    If you recall the movie “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington,” the new senator had not yet become corrupted, and the old senator was thoroughly corrupt but remembered a time before he had been corrupted. A Convention of States has a good chance of being filled with not-yet corrupted representatives.

    Throwing it away and starting from scratch is not the solution.

    Which is why a Convention of States does not have the power to do so.

    I have no faith in human nature, and all the good intentions will only lead to a place I do not want to be in…

    With an attitude like this, Max can have no faith in any human-run government.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *