[airics]

Originally Posted by Commander666

So you think it's higher? I do.

I agree.

How many dead people vote too?

[airics]

Originally Posted by Commander666

And quit leaving out the most important word..... I L L E G A L immigrants, comprende, senor?

hablo español por favor....

[Commander666]

Originally Posted by airics

I agree.

How many dead people vote too?

And felons. Or did that change? I found it interesting that people like Marion Berry couldn't vote, but could hold office.

[BBMW]

That would be very easy to check. It should be done routinely in each state after each election. I find the fact that it isn't suspicious.

Originally Posted by airics

I agree.

How many dead people vote too?

[jbgusa]

This proposal in Nevada, Colorado and other states adopting it is unconstitutional for the following reasns: 1) the provision for an interstate compact not approved by Congress; and 2) the violation of the Constitution's supremacy clause.

Originally Posted by Article I, Section X, Clause 3, U.S. Constitution

Clause 3. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Looks like this Interstate Compact is flatly unconstitutional.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, Article VI states in relevant part: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Thus, in general, federal legislation overrides state legislation. The timing of the sequence of events is determined federally. What follows is a summary of the provisions:

Originally Posted by Select statutes on Presidential election milestones

3 U.S.C. §1 states:

The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.

3 U.S.C. §7 states: “The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct.”

3 U.S.C. §15 provides, in relevant part:

Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o'clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct.

Since the "popular vote" is not officially counted or determined, this presents a serious logistical problem which the Compact seeks to bypass by providing: "Prior to the time set by law for the meeting and voting by the presidential electors, the chief election official of each member state shall determine the number of votes for each presidential slate in each State of the United States and in the District of Columbia in which votes have been cast in a statewide popular election and shall add such votes together to produce a “national popular vote total” for each presidential slate."

The devil is in the detail of how this would be done in a timely manner. I believe this cannot happen.

Most serious, however, is that fact that such an interstate compact requires Congressional approval. That won't happen as long as small states have an equal vote with "big states" in the Senate. The Constitution was not designed to be easily tampered with. As far approval of a voting compact, don't count on the Republicans having less than 40 Senate seats anytime soon. Ditto with a Constitutional amendment. More than 25% of states are small ones.

[geriatricjerry]

it is mind-blowing to me how many people claim to support states rights and then turn around and say Slimy Sisolak did the right thing here.

[equid0x]

Originally Posted by geriatricjerry

it is mind-blowing to me how many people claim to support states rights and then turn around and say Slimy Sisolak did the right thing here.

Its mind-blowing to me how many people don't understand that without the electoral college, a small population state like Nevada would have literally zero say in how our Federal Government operates.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by equid0x

Its mind-blowing to me how many people don't understand that without the electoral college, a small population state like Nevada would have literally zero say in how our Federal Government operates.

I would expect NV to properly have about a 1% say in the election of a President. And it should have about a 5X bigger say than Wyoming and 10% of that of CA. You really think WY, SD, ND, RI provide some important wisdom to the process? RI can claim some sovereignty rights to a bigger say perhaps. But the other small states? Nah. They were never Sovereign.

[Cold Warrior]

You really think WY, SD, ND, RI provide some important wisdom to the process?

Yep.

[equid0x]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

I would expect NV to properly have about a 1% say in the election of a President. And it should have about a 5X bigger say than Wyoming and 10% of that of CA. You really think WY, SD, ND, RI provide some important wisdom to the process? RI can claim some sovereignty rights to a bigger say perhaps. But the other small states? Nah. They were never Sovereign.

The US was founded under the Articles of Confederation and passed in 1781. The US constitution was developed during the constitutional convention beginning in 1787 and passed in 1788.

The whole reason the Constitutional Convention was convened in the first place was to rectify the many issues identified following the passage of the original Articles of Confederation, and to allow for a process to more easily develop changes to Federal Laws as the current situation in the country dictates. The whole point of the rewrite of the laws governing our country into the US Constitution was to make it a living document that would change as the governing needs of the populous changed over time.

The congressional summit convened to develop the Electoral college began in 1803 and was passed in 1804 as the 12th amendment to the US Constitution, precisely for the reason of providing more equal representation to the needs of states with a smaller populous.

Without this, the states with the highest populations will always determine the Federal Elections. Currently, this means that all Federal Elections will always be determined by the following states, or more succinctly, the major cities residing within them:

California
Texas
Florida
New York
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Ohio
Georgia
North Carolina

If you're okay with those 9 states determining ALL Federal elections, then I guess a popular vote is what you want.

The current system still gives precedence to high population states but still gives smaller states a minimum number of votes than CAN make a difference in the election.

Moving to a popular vote election system means states like Nevada will always be a complete shut-out. We might as well not even vote.