Nevada to join National Popular Vote compact

[Redfish]

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.

How so?

They still have two senators and four congressmen

they are ready to cede their presidential votes to Cal and NY.

 

[theHawk]

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.

Dems continue to piss on the will of the people.

 

[sakinago]

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.

How is it that the left sets it’s hair on fire claiming voter suppression when it comes to voter ID laws...but praises a law that will ignore what it’s state constituents vote for in favor of what the rest of the country voted for. Let’s say it’s trump v Biden, Nevada votes Biden but the nation votes trump...ALL THE EC VOTES GO TO TRUMP???? Does that seem right to you? How the fuck is that not voter suppression?

Except that most people want a national popular vote, so why are you so interested in suppressing that?

Polls Show more than 70% Support for a Nationwide Vote for President

What is the purpose of the EC?

 

[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.

How is it that the left sets it’s hair on fire claiming voter suppression when it comes to voter ID laws...but praises a law that will ignore what it’s state constituents vote for in favor of what the rest of the country voted for. Let’s say it’s trump v Biden, Nevada votes Biden but the nation votes trump...ALL THE EC VOTES GO TO TRUMP???? Does that seem right to you? How the fuck is that not voter suppression?

Except that most people want a national popular vote, so why are you so interested in suppressing that?

Polls Show more than 70% Support for a Nationwide Vote for President

What is the purpose of the EC?

/——/ You’re joking, right? New to the discussion? Rhetorical question?

 

[bodecea]

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.

How the hell does more women in government make a state better? Please explain to me how just having more pussy in government makes it work better for everyone?

It certainly doesn't make it worse...and I'm happy to say that NV is paying attention to things like sexual harassment by its own members now....unlike the U.S. Congress that still is secretly paying off complaints and we still don't know who those creeps are.

 

[boedicca]

I suspect this will be challenged at the Supreme Court level before too long. It is a glaring example of voter disenfranchisement. The result would be four stats determining the result of the election with the votes of the smaller states counting for nothing.

and if those are the four states where people live, not a problem.

Here's the thing. You would need everyone in those four states to vote as a monolithic block.

Frankly, I'd rather have the elections decided by the four biggest states than by three of the smaller ones, which is what happened last time.

Here's the real problem. The EC gives extra weight to states where WHITE PEOPLE live. after 40 years of fighting equal rights for people of color, they now make up 30% of the electorate, and you guys need tricks to keep them from having a voice.

You know, instead of coming up with good reasons why they should vote for you.

That sounds great except for the wee bit that we are a Federated Republic of States. Our system of government is designed to protect the rights of the minorities, which is why we are not a pure Democracy. As Tocqueville noted, Democracies devolve into the Tyranny of the Majority - which is exactly what this cynical legislation is designed to enact.

 

[ThisIsMe]

One reason it is unconstitutional is, the constitution says that states will choose electors, and those electors are to cast their ballots for president. What this compact does is remove the necessity for having electors, and removes their ability to choose.

The government of those states is now deciding how their electoral votes will be cast rather than the electors.

It may simply be a process violation, but it is a violation non the less.



Hmm, now that I think about it, the constitution doesnt really allude to electoral votes being decided on a popular vote of the citizens of a state, but rather, based on a popular vote of the electors.

This is one of those things that is a bit ambiguous as the constitution doesnt really define the role of the vote of the citizen, it merely states that the citizen has a vote. However, if you read the articles, it says that the each state gets electors based on the total number of representation. Those electors each votes for 2 people, they tally those votes up and the one with the most votes is elected president, the one with the next most votes is vice president.

To me, it is confusing as it doesnt really say the votes of the citizen has any effect on the outcome of the presidency.

What the compact is saying is, they are going to allocate their electoral votes based on the national popular vote, which bypasses their electors altogether, and awards their electoral votes based on an outcome that isnt really even specified in the constitution.

If I'm missing something, or my understanding is incorrect, someone please show me where it says that the vote of the citizen is used to decide how the electors would cast their vote. I'm not seeing it, in the text of the articles of the constitution.

 

[BrokeLoser]

I think we all know this Compact won’t / can’t happen.
It’s fun to talk about though...it affords us another opportunity to expose the fucked in the head twisted pukes on the left...they would love to allow Mexifornia and Loon York to elect our presidents.
“But, but, but....STATES RIGHTS!”

 

[Cellblock2429]

One reason it is unconstitutional is, the constitution says that states will choose electors, and those electors are to cast their ballots for president. What this compact does is remove the necessity for having electors, and removes their ability to choose.

The government of those states is now deciding how their electoral votes will be cast rather than the electors.

It may simply be a process violation, but it is a violation non the less.



Hmm, now that I think about it, the constitution doesnt really allude to electoral votes being decided on a popular vote of the citizens of a state, but rather, based on a popular vote of the electors.

This is one of those things that is a bit ambiguous as the constitution doesnt really define the role of the vote of the citizen, it merely states that the citizen has a vote. However, if you read the articles, it says that the each state gets electors based on the total number of representation. Those electors each votes for 2 people, they tally those votes up and the one with the most votes is elected president, the one with the next most votes is vice president.

To me, it is confusing as it doesnt really say the votes of the citizen has any effect on the outcome of the presidency.

What the compact is saying is, they are going to allocate their electoral votes based on the national popular vote, which bypasses their electors altogether, and awards their electoral votes based on an outcome that isnt really even specified in the constitution.

If I'm missing something, or my understanding is incorrect, someone please show me where it says that the vote of the citizen is used to decide how the electors would cast their vote. I'm not seeing it, in the text of the articles of the constitution.

/-----/ With this bad law in place and upheld by the USSC, then every election will be dragged out in court with challenges to the popular vote. Somehow a toss-up state finds 100,000 uncounted votes for the democrat which would throw the election to him. It will make the Florida recount look like a picnic.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

O

The Electoral College is required per the Constitution. Bypassing it would ignore the XII Amendment. States cannot simply vote their way around it as it is mandated as a function of the federal government. The same as states cannot simply vote to ignore a woman's right to vote (example)...I think you can figure it out.

The XII Amendment only calls for an electoral college. It does NOT tell a state how to allocate it's electors. That's why NE and ME select theirs by congressional district while the other 48 states are "winner take all".

There was a time period when state legislatures selected the electors, not the voters.

So allocating electors by who wins the national popular vote is completely within the prerogative of the states.

Great...However, this is not the states to CONTROL...this is the Federal governments.
If it comes down to brass tax the federal government can come in and ASSIGN electors for you.
Look at voting polls during the civil rights movement. The feds seized control of the polls to ensure voting rights were ensured.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In less than 20 years we've had the less popular guy win the election and in 2016 he lost by quite a bit.

Since 1988, the winner did not have a majority of the popular vote -4- times.
How is that relevant?
Its not. The popular vote is meaningless in a presidential election.

It's not "butthurt" to want the president to actually win an election.

Both Bush and Trump actually won the election.
Question for you:
Given all your reasons for electing the President with the popular vote, what argument is there that the person with the "most" voted should win?

6 of the past 7 the winner had at least a plurality, that's a pretty low bar to achieve, we can do much better than letting the loser win.

You avoided the question:
Given all your reasons for electing the President with the popular vote, what argument is there that the person with the "most" votes should win?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sure, you can pick through this, I posted it previously.
Polls Show more than 70% Support for a Nationwide Vote for President
Can we stay on topic now?

If true, you should have no issue amending the constitution.
Why don't you try that?

Because of the Republican party. It's not necessary to amend the Constitution anyway so don't worry about it.

How do you get rid of the electoral college w/o amending the constitution?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Matter of time it will happen.

You avoided the question:
Majority rule?
If that's the test, who should have won the 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2016 Presidential elections?

 

[bodecea]

No, it isn't ya crybaby.

Yes it is. And if this manages to backfire on progressive States, and the Dem wins the EV and loses the popular vote, you will see States like California and NY try ANYTHING to weasel their way out of it, because their citizens will demand it.

They see it as taking other people's EV's not giving up their own.

That's an opinion, but not everyone is as partisan as you.

You are a partisan hack, and you KNOW this is true, but you want to win so bad, you don't care.

Be honest for once in your life.

I've always felt the president should be elected by popular vote, 2000 and 2016 only drive home the point. There is also a slight issue in 2004 if Kerry had just 54k more votes in Ohio he would have won but lost the popular vote by about 3 million.

Then campaign to amend the Constitution.

End runs are short sighted, and tend to backfire.

So....Maine's way of counting EC votes has backfired?

 

[martybegan]

Yes it is. And if this manages to backfire on progressive States, and the Dem wins the EV and loses the popular vote, you will see States like California and NY try ANYTHING to weasel their way out of it, because their citizens will demand it.

They see it as taking other people's EV's not giving up their own.

That's an opinion, but not everyone is as partisan as you.

You are a partisan hack, and you KNOW this is true, but you want to win so bad, you don't care.

Be honest for once in your life.

I've always felt the president should be elected by popular vote, 2000 and 2016 only drive home the point. There is also a slight issue in 2004 if Kerry had just 54k more votes in Ohio he would have won but lost the popular vote by about 3 million.

Then campaign to amend the Constitution.

End runs are short sighted, and tend to backfire.

So....Maine's way of counting EC votes has backfired?

Maine's method still only counts votes inside the State.

I would actually prefer maine's method for the rest of the States, but the side effect would be to make redistricting even a bigger fight.

 

[Pogo]

O

The Electoral College is required per the Constitution. Bypassing it would ignore the XII Amendment. States cannot simply vote their way around it as it is mandated as a function of the federal government. The same as states cannot simply vote to ignore a woman's right to vote (example)...I think you can figure it out.

The XII Amendment only calls for an electoral college. It does NOT tell a state how to allocate it's electors. That's why NE and ME select theirs by congressional district while the other 48 states are "winner take all".

There was a time period when state legislatures selected the electors, not the voters.

So allocating electors by who wins the national popular vote is completely within the prerogative of the states.

Great...However, this is not the states to CONTROL...this is the Federal governments.
If it comes down to brass tax the federal government can come in and ASSIGN electors for you.
Look at voting polls during the civil rights movement. The feds seized control of the polls to ensure voting rights were ensured.

Ummmm NO Dumbass, it cannot. The Constitution specifically says it's up to each state to choose its own electors however it wants. It can hold election or not hold an election. It can throw darts at a wall or consult a Ouija board.

Go look it up before oozing onto this board embarrassing yourself with your profundity of ignorance.

 

[Pogo]

I suspect this will be challenged at the Supreme Court level before too long. It is a glaring example of voter disenfranchisement. The result would be four stats determining the result of the election with the votes of the smaller states counting for nothing.

and if those are the four states where people live, not a problem.

Here's the thing. You would need everyone in those four states to vote as a monolithic block.

Frankly, I'd rather have the elections decided by the four biggest states than by three of the smaller ones, which is what happened last time.

And beyond that, if the three of the smaller ones means say Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, the majority of voters in each of those states actually didn't vote for anybody. Literally nobody won as much as 50%, yet one klown got 100% of their Electoral Vote.

Same thing happened here. And in Florida. And in AridZona. And even frickin' Utah.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Has that argument ever been successful?

Yes.

Virginia v. Tennessee - Wikipedia

That's interesting, but see this 1981 case:
FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

"The requirement of congressional consent is at the heart of the Compact Clause. By vesting in Congress the power to grant or withhold consent, or to condition consent on the States' compliance with specified conditions, the Framers sought to ensure that Congress would maintain ultimate supervisory power over cooperative state action that might otherwise interfere with the full and free exercise of federal authority."

...that would include constitutional authority (supremacy clause)

and, even if congress approves:

"...where Congress has authorized the States to enter into a cooperative agreement, and where the subject matter of that agreement is an appropriate subject for congressional legislation, the consent of Congress transforms the States' agreement into federal law under the Compact Clause."

Which, as a federal law, is a de facto repeal of the 12th Amendment, and congress cannot do so without a constitutional amendment.

So, it is far from being deemed constitutional on precedent, and given the intent (to circumvent the electoral college) appears fairly suspect, particularly given that those who would allow such a circumvention without amendment have left the Court and been replaced by those who would hold that such action must be conducted under Article V.

.

It is also far from being deemed unconstitutional by precedent.

 

[peach174]

Every vote should count the same, it sure does in Congress, even 1 vote.

Then it wouldn't be a constitutional REPUBLIC now would it?

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4"

"It is sometimes claimed that the Founders wanted American governments to be "republics rather than democracies," but this claim is not quite accurate. In their linguistic usage, the Founders employed the terms "democracy" and "republic" with overlapping or even interchangeable meanings. Only one species of democracy was deemed inconsistent with republicanism. This was "pure democracy" or "simple and perfect democracy," a theoretical constitution identified by Aristotle and mentioned by John Adams and James Madison, among others. A pure democracy had no magistrates, because the "mob" made all decisions, including all executive and judicial decisions. The Founders saw this kind of democracy as inconsistent with republicanism, because it did not honor the rule of law. The Guarantee Clause's protection against domestic violence assures orderly government and the rule of law, and protects the states' legitimate magistracy against mob rule."
Guide to the Constitution



Of course if the people wish to change the Constitution they can.

Even tho there's nothing about getting rid of the EC in the OP....why would it no longer be a Republican Form of Government?

Every vote should count the same, it sure does in Congress, even 1 vote.

Then it wouldn't be a constitutional REPUBLIC now would it?

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4"

"It is sometimes claimed that the Founders wanted American governments to be "republics rather than democracies," but this claim is not quite accurate. In their linguistic usage, the Founders employed the terms "democracy" and "republic" with overlapping or even interchangeable meanings. Only one species of democracy was deemed inconsistent with republicanism. This was "pure democracy" or "simple and perfect democracy," a theoretical constitution identified by Aristotle and mentioned by John Adams and James Madison, among others. A pure democracy had no magistrates, because the "mob" made all decisions, including all executive and judicial decisions. The Founders saw this kind of democracy as inconsistent with republicanism, because it did not honor the rule of law. The Guarantee Clause's protection against domestic violence assures orderly government and the rule of law, and protects the states' legitimate magistracy against mob rule."
Guide to the Constitution



Of course if the people wish to change the Constitution they can.

Even tho there's nothing about getting rid of the EC in the OP....why would it no longer be a Republican Form of Government?

Mob rule is pure democracy with no voice for the minority.

166 people can live on one acre of a city apartment building.
One farmer and family for one acre of food crops.
The EC gives them a more equal voice over the larger populations of this nation.
This is call a constitutional republic form of government.

 

[Penelope]

Mob rule happens in Congress. But its not mob rule, its maj rule.