Nevada to join National Popular Vote compact

[DBA]

Hyperbole. LOL
You’re such a fool.

Oh, is that what were calling it? OK.

Let's go with your dodge then. Let's pretend you said "Most Americans also want a lower tax rate. Doesn't make it right". Remember that Republic thing you got wrong? Yeah, if we're talking about federal taxes, you don't vote on that. Who does you ask? Your representatives. Get it?

You do get to vote on it. Republicans are generally for lower taxes and Dems for higher taxes. Hence not one Democrat voted for lower taxes.

Republicans are not for lower taxes.

How do you explain the Tax cuts?

Oh for a moment there I thought you were serious.

Please tell me you aren't one of the dolts that thinks the majority of Americans didn't get a tax cut under Trump? LOL if you believed Biden.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Can we all agree that the EC today is not what the Founders set up for two reasons: 1) no 3/5th persons counted any more; and 2) the cap on the House of Representatives at 435.....?

No argument there.

But, the intent was to maintain state sovereignty and prevent a large state like Virginia from using the power of the FedGov to figuratively beat the fuck out of R.I.

 

[HappyJoy]

I doubt it, prove it.

LOL if you polled most Americans you think they would say we want to pay more taxes? Come on man.

You said 0% taxes. Don't change your argument just because you know you can't win it.

Hyperbole. LOL
You’re such a fool.

Oh, is that what were calling it? OK.

Let's go with your dodge then. Let's pretend you said "Most Americans also want a lower tax rate. Doesn't make it right". Remember that Republic thing you got wrong? Yeah, if we're talking about federal taxes, you don't vote on that. Who does you ask? Your representatives. Get it?

You do get to vote on it. Republicans are generally for lower taxes and Dems for higher taxes. Hence not one Democrat voted for lower taxes.

This is about states electing a president, I honestly have no idea why you're having a conversation that started out with (paraphrasing) "Yeah, but what if people voted for 0% tax". I'm sorry dud, you're argument isn't really up to snuff here as it's not anywhere near associated with the topic of the thread.

 

[HappyJoy]

[
Most Americans want to go by the popular vote, the EC has shown some chips in the armor.

There's a solution for this: Amend the constitution.

Don't need to.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I'm assuming that you want to take this country from a republic to a democracy, RW.
Five or six states can elect a president, and the rest of the states just has to pound sand?
Not being represented very well, IMO.

People will elect the President. Why are you perseverating on states as if they are people?

We will still be a republic.

No we wouldn't. You clearly don't understand the difference between a true democracy (mob rule and what you are advocating for) or our current system.

Yall can't make up your minds.....socialism, democracy, republic. Seems you change positions on the fly based on the subject at hand

Are we going to stop electing Senators and Representatives? No? Then it’s YOU who doesn’t know what a republic is. Every election but one is done by popular vote. If you don’t like this, pass an amendment taking away state’s right to allocate their electoral votes.

That's because the house and Senate have other protections and location specific guidelines ya moron.

name-calling again.

Cry me a river ya deplorable

 

[HappyJoy]

So, Florida's SOS says, "Trump wins."

The compact says, "what are the numbers?"

Florida SOS: "fuck you."

A Florida democrat demands that the SOS provide the totals.

The Florida SOS stonewalls.

The Florida democrat files a lawsuit.

Each Florida county election commissioner files a cross-claim.

There is a preliminary hearing where each commissioner demands the results of each other county.

A huge recount ensues.

The SOS then withdraws certification and refuses to certify the results.

The compact has 270, but no final totals from Florida.

Texas SOS also refuses and the same pattern of events plays out, with Texas' SOS refusing to certify the result.


Who is appointed in the compact to decide what the popular vote should be? Are all members unanimous in the final decision? And, why would they be?

.

OK, so Florida's voted aren't counted in the popular vote because they said "fuck you". Well, who gets fucked then? It's not in their best interest to hold back vote totals.

Every state certifies vote totals, they have to in order to decide who gets their state electors.

Seriously, your argument is childish.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

LOL if you polled most Americans you think they would say we want to pay more taxes? Come on man.

You said 0% taxes. Don't change your argument just because you know you can't win it.

Hyperbole. LOL
You’re such a fool.

Oh, is that what were calling it? OK.

Let's go with your dodge then. Let's pretend you said "Most Americans also want a lower tax rate. Doesn't make it right". Remember that Republic thing you got wrong? Yeah, if we're talking about federal taxes, you don't vote on that. Who does you ask? Your representatives. Get it?

You do get to vote on it. Republicans are generally for lower taxes and Dems for higher taxes. Hence not one Democrat voted for lower taxes.

This is about states electing a president, I honestly have no idea why you're having a conversation that started out with (paraphrasing) "Yeah, but what if people voted for 0% tax". I'm sorry dud, you're argument isn't really up to snuff here as it's not anywhere near associated with the topic of the thread.

My point is that the reasons these states are trying to change the rules is because some legislators are butthurt over the 2016 election. I think that’s a bad idea and sets a bad precedent. I also Believe that in general the Democrats have behaved terribly since then, calling people who voted for DJT as stupid, racist, etc. Just accept the loss and try to run a viable candidate in 2020. What’s next? Lowering the voting age to 16?...oh NVM

 

[DBA]

Can we all agree that the EC today is not what the Founders set up for two reasons: 1) no 3/5th persons counted any more; and 2) the cap on the House of Representatives at 435.....?

No argument there.

But, the intent was to maintain state sovereignty and prevent a large state like Virginia from using the power of the FedGov to figuratively beat the fuck out of R.I.

The left's base is largely in urban areas. People in these areas don't care nor do they have any idea of the needs of those living in more rural areas on the country. The more rural areas need to be represented as well.

You said 0% taxes. Don't change your argument just because you know you can't win it.

Hyperbole. LOL
You’re such a fool.

Oh, is that what were calling it? OK.

Let's go with your dodge then. Let's pretend you said "Most Americans also want a lower tax rate. Doesn't make it right". Remember that Republic thing you got wrong? Yeah, if we're talking about federal taxes, you don't vote on that. Who does you ask? Your representatives. Get it?

You do get to vote on it. Republicans are generally for lower taxes and Dems for higher taxes. Hence not one Democrat voted for lower taxes.

This is about states electing a president, I honestly have no idea why you're having a conversation that started out with (paraphrasing) "Yeah, but what if people voted for 0% tax". I'm sorry dud, you're argument isn't really up to snuff here as it's not anywhere near associated with the topic of the thread.

My point is that the reasons these states are trying to change the rules is because some legislators are butthurt over the 2016 election. I think that’s a bad idea and sets a bad precedent. I also Believe that in general the Democrats have behaved terribly since then, calling people who voted for DJT as stupid, racist, etc. Just accept the loss and try to run a viable candidate in 2020. What’s next? Lowering the voting age to 16?...oh NVM

Yeah and allowing convicted felons to vote...oh, wait. BTW, does anyone find it hilarious that Democrats clearly believe that convicted felons would vote in mass for Democrats? I guess we all vote for those that best represent our morals and ideals.

 

[HappyJoy]

Can we all agree that the EC today is not what the Founders set up for two reasons: 1) no 3/5th persons counted any more; and 2) the cap on the House of Representatives at 435.....?

No argument there.

But, the intent was to maintain state sovereignty and prevent a large state like Virginia from using the power of the FedGov to figuratively beat the fuck out of R.I.

Not if the original intent was that every 30,000 citizens would have representation, as pointed out if we kept at that pace the only advantage would be the two senators in smaller states, its the numbers that come from the house that make it so lopsided.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Each state tallies their votes. The compact states assign their electors to the popular vote winner. If there are not enough states (equal to 270 plus electoral college votes) then the compact is disbanded.

If a state within the compact doesn't provide vote totals and the compact is still over 270 ec votes then they aren't counted. If a non-compact state does not provide vote totals (which never happens?) then I guess they fucked themselves.

So, if all non-compact states refuse to give up totals, the compact could decide the popular vote based on compact members only?

All the non-compact states could ban together and refuse to certify?

This interstate power play is looking a lot like the events leading up to the Civil War.

.

 

[rightwinger]

No, you didn't. You seemed to have misunderstood several parts of it though.

you ignore that my issue is with certification. Who certifies it so the compact is enforced?

Each...state...certifies...their...vote...tallies.

But. who. certifies. the. national. vote.

There is no such thing as a national vote, and even if the compact passes enough States to have the EV's, there won't be an actual, certified, national vote either.

The States are required to send the electors of the winner of the national vote, that doesn't exist.

I'm going to say this one more time. Each state certifies their vote tallies. So, Nevada would count all those votes up, add their own to it and then they would be able to give the winner of the popular vote their ec votes. Whoa...magic and shit.

Math is hard! They be using them Arabic numbers....that's the problem!

Arabic numbers are only for Arabs.....This is America!

 

[rightwinger]

Each state tallies their votes. The compact states assign their electors to the popular vote winner. If there are not enough states (equal to 270 plus electoral college votes) then the compact is disbanded.

If a state within the compact doesn't provide vote totals and the compact is still over 270 ec votes then they aren't counted. If a non-compact state does not provide vote totals (which never happens?) then I guess they fucked themselves.

So, if all non-compact states refuse to give up totals, the compact could decide the popular vote based on compact members only?

All the non-compact states could ban together and refuse to certify?

This interstate power play is looking a lot like the events leading up to the Civil War.

.

Hard to certify an election without vote totals

 

[HappyJoy]

You said 0% taxes. Don't change your argument just because you know you can't win it.

Hyperbole. LOL
You’re such a fool.

Oh, is that what were calling it? OK.

Let's go with your dodge then. Let's pretend you said "Most Americans also want a lower tax rate. Doesn't make it right". Remember that Republic thing you got wrong? Yeah, if we're talking about federal taxes, you don't vote on that. Who does you ask? Your representatives. Get it?

You do get to vote on it. Republicans are generally for lower taxes and Dems for higher taxes. Hence not one Democrat voted for lower taxes.

This is about states electing a president, I honestly have no idea why you're having a conversation that started out with (paraphrasing) "Yeah, but what if people voted for 0% tax". I'm sorry dud, you're argument isn't really up to snuff here as it's not anywhere near associated with the topic of the thread.

My point is that the reasons these states are trying to change the rules is because some legislators are butthurt over the 2016 election. I think that’s a bad idea and sets a bad precedent. I also Believe that in general the Democrats have behaved terribly since then, calling people who voted for DJT as stupid, racist, etc. Just accept the loss and try to run a viable candidate in 2020. What’s next? Lowering the voting age to 16?...oh NVM

Oh, I see the name calling only went in one direction. Good grief. You keep starting this posts that go way, way off topic. I don't give two fucks what some SJW called you, ok?

In less than 20 years we've had the less popular guy win the election and in 2016 he lost by quite a bit. It's not "butthurt" to want the president to actually win an election. Not to mention Bush was a pretty dumb guy (I'm staying away from Trump here to not distract you) and thanks to him he went to war int he wrong country and it was executed very poorly and he left us with a financial mess. I personally trust the American people to mostly get it right, if only they were given the power and not this antiquated go between system we have now.

 

[HappyJoy]

Each state tallies their votes. The compact states assign their electors to the popular vote winner. If there are not enough states (equal to 270 plus electoral college votes) then the compact is disbanded.

If a state within the compact doesn't provide vote totals and the compact is still over 270 ec votes then they aren't counted. If a non-compact state does not provide vote totals (which never happens?) then I guess they fucked themselves.

So, if all non-compact states refuse to give up totals, the compact could decide the popular vote based on compact members only?

All the non-compact states could ban together and refuse to certify?

This interstate power play is looking a lot like the events leading up to the Civil War.

.

Why would they refuse? What would possibly be the point of that? Plus they have to be transparent so they know who their own electors are. Good luck with that.

I suppose the compact would just go with the vote totals they have and throw them to whoever won in their own states, right? I mean in your scenario you're giving them the win.

 

[HappyJoy]

Each state tallies their votes. The compact states assign their electors to the popular vote winner. If there are not enough states (equal to 270 plus electoral college votes) then the compact is disbanded.

If a state within the compact doesn't provide vote totals and the compact is still over 270 ec votes then they aren't counted. If a non-compact state does not provide vote totals (which never happens?) then I guess they fucked themselves.

So, if all non-compact states refuse to give up totals, the compact could decide the popular vote based on compact members only?

All the non-compact states could ban together and refuse to certify?

This interstate power play is looking a lot like the events leading up to the Civil War.

.

Ok, refuse to certify, i.e. they won't be counted. Good luck with that.

 

[HappyJoy]

you ignore that my issue is with certification. Who certifies it so the compact is enforced?

Each...state...certifies...their...vote...tallies.

But. who. certifies. the. national. vote.

There is no such thing as a national vote, and even if the compact passes enough States to have the EV's, there won't be an actual, certified, national vote either.

The States are required to send the electors of the winner of the national vote, that doesn't exist.

I'm going to say this one more time. Each state certifies their vote tallies. So, Nevada would count all those votes up, add their own to it and then they would be able to give the winner of the popular vote their ec votes. Whoa...magic and shit.

Math is hard! They be using them Arabic numbers....that's the problem!

Arabic numbers are only for Arabs.....This is America!

Oh, now I get it. marty doesn't have enough fingers.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Hyperbole. LOL
You’re such a fool.

Oh, is that what were calling it? OK.

Let's go with your dodge then. Let's pretend you said "Most Americans also want a lower tax rate. Doesn't make it right". Remember that Republic thing you got wrong? Yeah, if we're talking about federal taxes, you don't vote on that. Who does you ask? Your representatives. Get it?

You do get to vote on it. Republicans are generally for lower taxes and Dems for higher taxes. Hence not one Democrat voted for lower taxes.

This is about states electing a president, I honestly have no idea why you're having a conversation that started out with (paraphrasing) "Yeah, but what if people voted for 0% tax". I'm sorry dud, you're argument isn't really up to snuff here as it's not anywhere near associated with the topic of the thread.

My point is that the reasons these states are trying to change the rules is because some legislators are butthurt over the 2016 election. I think that’s a bad idea and sets a bad precedent. I also Believe that in general the Democrats have behaved terribly since then, calling people who voted for DJT as stupid, racist, etc. Just accept the loss and try to run a viable candidate in 2020. What’s next? Lowering the voting age to 16?...oh NVM

Oh, I see the name calling only went in one direction. Good grief. You keep starting this posts that go way, way off topic. I don't give two fucks what some SJW called you, ok?

In less than 20 years we've had the less popular guy win the election and in 2016 he lost by quite a bit. It's not "butthurt" to want the president to actually win an election. Not to mention Bush was a pretty dumb guy (I'm staying away from Trump here to not distract you) and thanks to him he went to war int he wrong country and it was executed very poorly and he left us with a financial mess. I personally trust the American people to mostly get it right, if only they were given the power and not this antiquated go between system we have now.

Me? No one would call me anything. People who live in Boston are not snowflakes. Bush still is pretty dumb. You trust American people to get it right? Such as giving Bernie Sanders millions of votes? The communist, Bernie Sanders. Or American people who voted in Tlaib and Omar? It is their right but "getting it right" is subjective.

Dan Crenshaw is better and more qualified than any Democrat IMO and hopefully runs is 2024.

 

[HappyJoy]

Oh, is that what were calling it? OK.

Let's go with your dodge then. Let's pretend you said "Most Americans also want a lower tax rate. Doesn't make it right". Remember that Republic thing you got wrong? Yeah, if we're talking about federal taxes, you don't vote on that. Who does you ask? Your representatives. Get it?

You do get to vote on it. Republicans are generally for lower taxes and Dems for higher taxes. Hence not one Democrat voted for lower taxes.

This is about states electing a president, I honestly have no idea why you're having a conversation that started out with (paraphrasing) "Yeah, but what if people voted for 0% tax". I'm sorry dud, you're argument isn't really up to snuff here as it's not anywhere near associated with the topic of the thread.

My point is that the reasons these states are trying to change the rules is because some legislators are butthurt over the 2016 election. I think that’s a bad idea and sets a bad precedent. I also Believe that in general the Democrats have behaved terribly since then, calling people who voted for DJT as stupid, racist, etc. Just accept the loss and try to run a viable candidate in 2020. What’s next? Lowering the voting age to 16?...oh NVM

Oh, I see the name calling only went in one direction. Good grief. You keep starting this posts that go way, way off topic. I don't give two fucks what some SJW called you, ok?

In less than 20 years we've had the less popular guy win the election and in 2016 he lost by quite a bit. It's not "butthurt" to want the president to actually win an election. Not to mention Bush was a pretty dumb guy (I'm staying away from Trump here to not distract you) and thanks to him he went to war int he wrong country and it was executed very poorly and he left us with a financial mess. I personally trust the American people to mostly get it right, if only they were given the power and not this antiquated go between system we have now.

Me? No one would call me anything. People who live in Boston are not snowflakes. Bush still is pretty dumb. You trust American people to get it right? Such as giving Bernie Sanders millions of votes? The communist, Bernie Sanders. Or American people who voted in Tlaib and Omar? It is their right but "getting it right" is subjective.

Dan Crenshaw is better and more qualified than any Democrat IMO and hopefully runs is 2024.

I'm convinced you have ADHD.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The Nevada Senate approved Tuesday a National Popular Vote bill on a party-line vote, sending the legislation aimed at upending the Electoral College to the governor.

Assembly Bill 186, which passed the Senateon 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.

Nevada Senate passes National Popular Vote bill on party-line vote

That’s 2 new states in less than 2 months. The NPV keeps chugging along.

Nevada is getting better and better. Now it also has a majority of women in its state legislature.

/——/ Nevada relegates itself to fly over country status.

 

[Redfish]

I wonder if the average voter in Nevada understands that now their votes will not count at all and that they have given their voting rights over to LA and NYC.

This is unconstitutional and will be overturned as soon as it is tested in any court, but I seriously wonder is the people of NV really want to give up their voting rights-----------or are they so dumb that they don't understand that that is exactly what this does?