Nevada’s governor vetoes bill to void electoral college


Week Three: Ninth Anniversary Fund-Raising Drive for Behind the Black
 

It is now the third week in my annual anniversary fund-raising campaign for Behind the Black.


Please consider donating. I am trying to avoid advertising on this website, but will be forced to add it if I do not get enough support from my readers. You can give a one-time contribution, from $5 to $100, or a regular subscription for as little as $2 per month. Your support will be deeply appreciated, and will allow me to continue to report on science and culture freely.


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

Good news: Nevada’s Democratic governor has suprisingly vetoed a bill to that would have given all of Nevada’s electoral college votes to whichever candidate won the national popular vote.

It appears he actually put the interests of his state and its citizens above Democratic partisan politics.

“After thoughtful deliberation, I have decided to veto Assembly Bill 186,” [Governor Steve] Sisolak said in a statement. “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.”

This is a major blow to the effort by Democrats to void the electoral college, which would almost guarantee their victory in every future presidential election, due to their domination in high population states like California and New York.

Some related good news: Maine’s House today defeated a similar bill that had been approved by its Senate two weeks ago.

While the Senate vote fell largely on along party lines, with all Republicans and two Democrats opposing it, the House saw a more bipartisan rejection of the measure, after at least 20 lawmakers made speeches from the floor.

In other words, once they were made aware of the harmful nature of the bill to Maine’s interests, more Democrats, like Nevada’s governor, chose their state’s interests over national Democratic partisan politics.

Share

9 comments

  • wodun

    Win the popular vote but not have a majority of the popular vote.

  • pzatchok

    The only time the electoral collage is out of sink with the popular vote to a noticeable effect is just before the new census.
    the next is in 2020.

  • m d mill

    I would repeat the analysis I made previously.
    The only way this can work logically is if “RED” [or small] states go along with it.
    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!

  • F-16 Bill

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but this ploy to tinker with the electoral college, and by default, the Constitution, would certainly have been forced into the hands of the SCOTUS, yes?
    Not sure what the argument for eliminating the EC would be.

  • m d mill

    Since the Constitution allows the states to determine its electors as they see fit, this ploy to tinker with the electoral college is, however, Constitutional…so SCOTUS would not get involved, IMO.
    I just don’t see how it can be effective, assuming “RED” states and smaller states don’t implement the plan, against their best interests. As RZ points out, both Maine and Nevada seem to have figured this out, belatedly.

  • m d mill

    pzatchok:
    Not quite true (IMO).
    The number of electors is proportional (roughly) to the census count PLUS 2 electors corresponding to the 2 state US Senators. Thus, smaller states do get a small but noticeable advantage over the popular vote method, as the founders wished.

  • pzatchok

    The percentage difference is minuscule at this point.
    And getting smaller the faster the large urban centers increase in population vs the agricultural.

    The dems are always looking for a way to cheat or at least twist the system.

    The democrats now want to keep the ‘legal citizen’ line off of the next census.
    If they get to add in all the illegals they get more representatives and thus more electors. Without the illegals actually having to vote.(even though they do let them vote state wide)
    Sort of like the 3/5 ths compromise for slaves. Then all the voting tests they imposed after the war.

  • m d mill

    pzatchok:
    It is not minuscule(IMO)…it is easily equal to a one or two electoral college vote “over count” per smaller state..This could add to greater than 25 electoral counts overall which could be decisive in a close election.
    Further, and more importantly, at the current time the large democratic states have a large disparity in the dem to republican vote. The republican states have a much smaller margin of majority, in general. Thus, in a popular vote the dems would have a significant advantage over the electoral college system. Which is why Clinton won the popular vote, but Trump won the electoral vote handily.

    My point is that there is indeed a significant practical difference in the two voting systems, which you seem to imply is not the case.

  • Cotour

    A LITTLE POLITICAL ENTERTAINMENT.

    A friend of mine who lives in Arizona (I think the Zman lives in Arizona if I remember correctly) sent me a letter from their representative, Ann Kirkpatrick (D) Arizona. In the letter she attempts to school my friend on immigration, and never mentions the illegal nature of it. So I wrote an imaginary response letter that someone with a different perspective might write.

    Dear Representative Kirkpatrick,

    Thank you for your response to my letter regarding my concern for the out of control ILLEGAL immigration situation in our country and how it threatens all our futures. In your response you site “Immigration” which is something that we all as Americans whole heartedly embrace, however ILLEGAL immigration is something that is in another category and the one should not be equated with the other. And while we as Americans are a compassionate people it is unreasonable to expect for our effectively open border policy to remain as is.

    The 1965 immigration act passed by Congress and signed into law by president Lyndon B. Johnson which gave IMMIGRATION preference to our Southern border could be argued as being used as a political weapon primarily by the dominant party that passed the act into law and is facilitating a scheme that is creating a voting imbalance in our country. And that potential was pointed out at the time of its passing. The law must now be changed to protect our American borders from being overrun. Last month alone there were over one hundred thousand people apprehended at our border attempting to enter our country ILLEGALLY. Those are apprehension numbers, who knows how many there actually are? And their will be well over one million ILLEGALS apprehended at our borders this year and this does not even consider those coming to our country LEGALLY. It has grown out of control and must be properly and responsibly dealt with in the interests of the American people by you.

    Your siting of the poem by Emma Lasarus affixed to the statue of Liberty is a fine sentiment and it relates once again to LEGAL immigration, which again is not to say that Americans turn their backs on those in need, they do not. But that compassion does not come at a price that threatens our social, economic and political stability. And once again, the poem is a fine sentiment but it does not recognize the foundation of our country and government which is the Constitution and your and your fellow Congress persons sworn job is to protect and guard our Constitution as written and not as a sentiment in a poem.

    You also mention the “Unnecessary” Trump border wall. I would ask you, do you live behind a secure locked door? Even safely behind a wall or fence and a locked gate at your home? Is a wall or a fence where determined to be needed by the proper and qualified law enforcement agencies for the safety of our country an unreasonable and “unnecessary” thing to provide for the safety of your fellow Americans?

    You also mention the “Dreamers” which would naturally refer to the executive order that created their status by president Obama who himself clearly admitted was not Constitutional. And this is actually a subject that we can agree at least in part on. I think that a special consideration of some sort should be made for these people brought here by their family members as infants. But that being said this unsupportable and irrational incentivizing of people, now from all over the world, to breach our borders illegally must end. Suicide is not mentioned in the Constitution as a fundamental tenet.

    So in closing I think that we can agree that Congress and the president need to come together and fix these policies and laws that threaten our very foundation in a rational and reasonable manner that takes into consideration first the interests of the American people. The inequities of the world exist and will continue to exist and America needs to implement new policies and laws that secure OUR future and there by we can help and secure those who depend on our leadership in the world. For without those rational policies and laws we are all threatened.

    MAGA

Leave a Reply

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