Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nevada's Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak on Thursday vetoed a bill that would have pledged the state’s Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote.
"After thoughtful deliberation, I have decided to veto Assembly Bill 186," 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.”
“I recognize that many of my fellow Nevadans may disagree on this point and I appreciate the legislature’s thoughtful consideration of this important issue," he added.
He absolutely nails the principle. Small states lose influence with this National Popular Vote effort.
In a past thread, I think I actually did the math on how the influence of people in certain states are affected with and without the electoral college.
...one of the few pols that didn't sleep through their civics class.....
The founders allowed for changes in the processes. There is nothing illegal in doing this. I don't support it either but it has little to do with missing civics class.
The founders allowed for changes in the processes. There is nothing illegal in doing this. I don't support it either but it has little to do with missing civics class.
Voting is largely a state issue.
...okay..who said it was illegal...who said the process could not be changed?...
...it has everything to do with civics class...how does it not??...
...one needs to know what form of government one has in order to change it...
Just because something in the Constitution can be changed doesn't mean it should. Article 1, Section 8 can also be changed, but the founding fathers had good reason for structuring it as they did. And given the situation right now, you would get quite the uproar from a certain group of people if one did attempt to change it.
As far as the legalities, now yes, states can attempt to do a run around the Constitution when it comes to the Electoral College. But the problem is two-fold:
1. They would need enough states equal to the 270 electoral votes to join into a pact to have their electoral votes go towards the candidate who wins the popular vote.
2. The Compact Clause in the Constitution suggests that any such pact would likely require congressional approval, and there's no guarantee that will happen.
2. The Compact Clause in the Constitution suggests that any such pact would likely require congressional approval, and there's no guarantee that will happen.
Very unlikely as I said, voting is largely left up to the states.
Very unlikely as I said, voting is largely left up to the states.
It doesn't matter if voting's left up to the states. They're still bound by the process spelled out in the Constitution unless they're successful at forming the pact I laid out earlier and then getting approval for it by the federal government.
These Popular Vote bills are nothing more than virtue signalling, and they know it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
