Nevada Democrat Governor Issues first Veto of his tenure, nixing National Popular Vote

[Cecilie1200]

Why do so many people seem to have the mistaken impression that Californians and New Yorkers all vote for Democrats? Trump got something like 7.3 million votes between those two states, and various other candidates also got votes other than Trump and Clinton. Clinton got around 13.3 million in those 2 states. That's a 6 million vote difference in an election which had almost 130,000,000 votes cast.

No one said all Californians and New Yorkers vote Democrat. However, both states have far more Democrats than they do Republicans, and even their Republicans tend to be more left-leaning than in most states.

 

[Montrovant]

Why do so many people seem to have the mistaken impression that Californians and New Yorkers all vote for Democrats? Trump got something like 7.3 million votes between those two states, and various other candidates also got votes other than Trump and Clinton. Clinton got around 13.3 million in those 2 states. That's a 6 million vote difference in an election which had almost 130,000,000 votes cast.

No one said all Californians and New Yorkers vote Democrat. However, both states have far more Democrats than they do Republicans, and even their Republicans tend to be more left-leaning than in most states.

Quite a few people have said that a popular vote for president would lead to California and New York deciding all presidential elections. Just in this thread 2 posters have made such a claim. That strongly implies that California and NY vote as a block for one candidate.

 

[Montrovant]

It isn't unconstitutional. The states doing this shit will give all their EC votes to the national pop vote winner.
Their citizens might not care for it but it is perfectly legal.

How does outsourcing a voting process designed to be in-State to people Outside the State pass constitutional muster?

It fails on the guarantee of a republican form of government, it fails by way of equal protection, and it fails on the State-State compacts clause.

Never mind the fact that if somehow this passes for 2020 and Trump wins the national vote but loses the EC, Blue States would try to figure some way out of it, throwing us into a Constitutional Crisis and maybe a Civil War.

The Constitution gives states the authority to choose electors how they want. In the past some states let their legislatures choose electors, foregoing any sort of public vote. In the current setup not all states follow a statewide popular vote: Nebraska and Maine, I believe, choose 2 electors through statewide popular vote and the rest through district vote.

I don't see how this prevents a republican form of government. I'm not sure how this is supposed to violate equal protection. Finally, the USSC has ruled that the Compact clause only applies to a pretty narrow range of agreements between states, from what I have read, so I don't know that this would apply.

While the Constitution does give the states themselves the right to decide how their electoral votes will be apportioned, it is inappropriate at the very least for a state to decide that its electors will be chosen by states other than themselves. As I've said before in other threads, there are limits on how states can and cannot exercise this power. They would not be allowed to, for instance, decide that they were going to give those electoral votes to whichever candidate paid them the biggest bribe, could they?

Certainly there are limits, as in all things. I question whether this particular system would actually cross those limits. If it doesn't violate any laws, and doesn't violate any other part of the Constitution, I imagine it would stand. The bribery example you gave would violate other laws, and so would not (I would hope).

This popular vote compact may be inappropriate, but I believe it is legal and Constitutional considering the broad authority states have to choose their electors.

 

[Claudette]

Smart move. His voters won't be disenfranchised.

That's why the EC works.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why do so many people seem to have the mistaken impression that Californians and New Yorkers all vote for Democrats? Trump got something like 7.3 million votes between those two states, and various other candidates also got votes other than Trump and Clinton. Clinton got around 13.3 million in those 2 states. That's a 6 million vote difference in an election which had almost 130,000,000 votes cast.

No one said all Californians and New Yorkers vote Democrat. However, both states have far more Democrats than they do Republicans, and even their Republicans tend to be more left-leaning than in most states.

Quite a few people have said that a popular vote for president would lead to California and New York deciding all presidential elections. Just in this thread 2 posters have made such a claim. That strongly implies that California and NY vote as a block for one candidate.

No, it just indicates that a handful of metropolitan areas have enough population to dominate elections and make the votes coming from less-populated areas irrelevant.

 

[Montrovant]

Why do so many people seem to have the mistaken impression that Californians and New Yorkers all vote for Democrats? Trump got something like 7.3 million votes between those two states, and various other candidates also got votes other than Trump and Clinton. Clinton got around 13.3 million in those 2 states. That's a 6 million vote difference in an election which had almost 130,000,000 votes cast.

No one said all Californians and New Yorkers vote Democrat. However, both states have far more Democrats than they do Republicans, and even their Republicans tend to be more left-leaning than in most states.

Quite a few people have said that a popular vote for president would lead to California and New York deciding all presidential elections. Just in this thread 2 posters have made such a claim. That strongly implies that California and NY vote as a block for one candidate.

No, it just indicates that a handful of metropolitan areas have enough population to dominate elections and make the votes coming from less-populated areas irrelevant.

Which less-populated areas are "irrelevant"? Wouldn't the same reasoning apply to the current system, just on a state-wide level: the handful of metropolitan areas make the votes from other areas of the given state irrelevant?

I also still don't see how, considering that Clinton only got 6 million more votes than Trump in California and New York, those 2 states would control a popular vote election unless, maybe, the voters all went for a single candidate.

 

[hadit]

It isn't unconstitutional. The states doing this shit will give all their EC votes to the national pop vote winner.
Their citizens might not care for it but it is perfectly legal.

True enough, but i'd really like to see CA's electoral votes go to a Republican. The wailing would be epic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why do so many people seem to have the mistaken impression that Californians and New Yorkers all vote for Democrats? Trump got something like 7.3 million votes between those two states, and various other candidates also got votes other than Trump and Clinton. Clinton got around 13.3 million in those 2 states. That's a 6 million vote difference in an election which had almost 130,000,000 votes cast.

No one said all Californians and New Yorkers vote Democrat. However, both states have far more Democrats than they do Republicans, and even their Republicans tend to be more left-leaning than in most states.

Quite a few people have said that a popular vote for president would lead to California and New York deciding all presidential elections. Just in this thread 2 posters have made such a claim. That strongly implies that California and NY vote as a block for one candidate.

No, it just indicates that a handful of metropolitan areas have enough population to dominate elections and make the votes coming from less-populated areas irrelevant.

Which less-populated areas are "irrelevant"? Wouldn't the same reasoning apply to the current system, just on a state-wide level: the handful of metropolitan areas make the votes from other areas of the given state irrelevant?

I also still don't see how, considering that Clinton only got 6 million more votes than Trump in California and New York, those 2 states would control a popular vote election unless, maybe, the voters all went for a single candidate.

Metropolitan areas are always going to have an advantage over rural areas in terms of numbers. That's a given. However, there's a big difference between a state's electoral votes leaning toward its biggest population center and the entire nation's election being controlled by a handful of cities. For starters, the people of southern Arizona have a lot more in common with the people of Phoenix (I use this example because I live in Arizona) than the people of Arizona have with the people of New York City.

 

[Polishprince]

Good news. Now hopefully the other states making this unethical move of doing away with the electoral college will follow Nevada's Governor and do the right thing.

Twitter

Sisolak vetoes bill that would pledge Nevada's support to winner of national popular vote, reject Electoral College

Good for Gov. Sisolak. He swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and he did it even though the bill would have benefited his political party

 

[Montrovant]

Why do so many people seem to have the mistaken impression that Californians and New Yorkers all vote for Democrats? Trump got something like 7.3 million votes between those two states, and various other candidates also got votes other than Trump and Clinton. Clinton got around 13.3 million in those 2 states. That's a 6 million vote difference in an election which had almost 130,000,000 votes cast.

No one said all Californians and New Yorkers vote Democrat. However, both states have far more Democrats than they do Republicans, and even their Republicans tend to be more left-leaning than in most states.

Quite a few people have said that a popular vote for president would lead to California and New York deciding all presidential elections. Just in this thread 2 posters have made such a claim. That strongly implies that California and NY vote as a block for one candidate.

No, it just indicates that a handful of metropolitan areas have enough population to dominate elections and make the votes coming from less-populated areas irrelevant.

Which less-populated areas are "irrelevant"? Wouldn't the same reasoning apply to the current system, just on a state-wide level: the handful of metropolitan areas make the votes from other areas of the given state irrelevant?

I also still don't see how, considering that Clinton only got 6 million more votes than Trump in California and New York, those 2 states would control a popular vote election unless, maybe, the voters all went for a single candidate.

Metropolitan areas are always going to have an advantage over rural areas in terms of numbers. That's a given. However, there's a big difference between a state's electoral votes leaning toward its biggest population center and the entire nation's election being controlled by a handful of cities. For starters, the people of southern Arizona have a lot more in common with the people of Phoenix (I use this example because I live in Arizona) than the people of Arizona have with the people of New York City.

That still does not answer the question of how those states control an election by national popular vote. If anything, those states would grant less influence to one party with a national popular vote. As it stands, all of the electoral votes in Cali and NY go to the candidate with a plurality in each state. So those metro areas are already having a larger influence than they would with a popular vote, because the votes for losing candidates are ignored on the national level; if the metro areas control the vote, they are already giving every electoral vote to the Democratic candidates, and have done so since the 80s.

How would "a handful of cities" control the nation's election? Again, there were near 130,000,000 votes cast in the 2016 election. How many of those votes were from the cities in question, and did all of those cities vote for the same candidate?

The idea that a small number of cities will decide every election is tossed about like a fact, but I have never seen any statistics to actually back up the claim.

There are certainly issues with a national popular vote for president. That a handful of cities would control such a vote is not, I think, one of them.

Of course, it's possible that a national popular vote would cause a radical shift in the voting habits of the public which would render all I've said moot.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No one said all Californians and New Yorkers vote Democrat. However, both states have far more Democrats than they do Republicans, and even their Republicans tend to be more left-leaning than in most states.

Quite a few people have said that a popular vote for president would lead to California and New York deciding all presidential elections. Just in this thread 2 posters have made such a claim. That strongly implies that California and NY vote as a block for one candidate.

No, it just indicates that a handful of metropolitan areas have enough population to dominate elections and make the votes coming from less-populated areas irrelevant.

Which less-populated areas are "irrelevant"? Wouldn't the same reasoning apply to the current system, just on a state-wide level: the handful of metropolitan areas make the votes from other areas of the given state irrelevant?

I also still don't see how, considering that Clinton only got 6 million more votes than Trump in California and New York, those 2 states would control a popular vote election unless, maybe, the voters all went for a single candidate.

Metropolitan areas are always going to have an advantage over rural areas in terms of numbers. That's a given. However, there's a big difference between a state's electoral votes leaning toward its biggest population center and the entire nation's election being controlled by a handful of cities. For starters, the people of southern Arizona have a lot more in common with the people of Phoenix (I use this example because I live in Arizona) than the people of Arizona have with the people of New York City.

That still does not answer the question of how those states control an election by national popular vote. If anything, those states would grant less influence to one party with a national popular vote. As it stands, all of the electoral votes in Cali and NY go to the candidate with a plurality in each state. So those metro areas are already having a larger influence than they would with a popular vote, because the votes for losing candidates are ignored on the national level; if the metro areas control the vote, they are already giving every electoral vote to the Democratic candidates, and have done so since the 80s.

How would "a handful of cities" control the nation's election? Again, there were near 130,000,000 votes cast in the 2016 election. How many of those votes were from the cities in question, and did all of those cities vote for the same candidate?

The idea that a small number of cities will decide every election is tossed about like a fact, but I have never seen any statistics to actually back up the claim.

There are certainly issues with a national popular vote for president. That a handful of cities would control such a vote is not, I think, one of them.

Of course, it's possible that a national popular vote would cause a radical shift in the voting habits of the public which would render all I've said moot.

Here. You want an explanation of all the points against this, it's right here, including the one you keep refusing to understand. You're going to have to want to understand it, though.

National Popular Vote Compact is a Bad Idea

National Popular Vote Is a Bad Idea

Popular Vote Plan Would Do More Harm Than Good | RealClearPolitics

 

[BluesLegend]

It isn't unconstitutional. The states doing this shit will give all their EC votes to the national pop vote winner.
Their citizens might not care for it but it is perfectly legal.

The SCOTUS will squash that like a bug and the decision could be unanimous. Politicians scheming to RIG elections, deny the voting rights of millions of citizens, not a chance in hell that stands.

 

[Montrovant]

Quite a few people have said that a popular vote for president would lead to California and New York deciding all presidential elections. Just in this thread 2 posters have made such a claim. That strongly implies that California and NY vote as a block for one candidate.

No, it just indicates that a handful of metropolitan areas have enough population to dominate elections and make the votes coming from less-populated areas irrelevant.

Which less-populated areas are "irrelevant"? Wouldn't the same reasoning apply to the current system, just on a state-wide level: the handful of metropolitan areas make the votes from other areas of the given state irrelevant?

I also still don't see how, considering that Clinton only got 6 million more votes than Trump in California and New York, those 2 states would control a popular vote election unless, maybe, the voters all went for a single candidate.

Metropolitan areas are always going to have an advantage over rural areas in terms of numbers. That's a given. However, there's a big difference between a state's electoral votes leaning toward its biggest population center and the entire nation's election being controlled by a handful of cities. For starters, the people of southern Arizona have a lot more in common with the people of Phoenix (I use this example because I live in Arizona) than the people of Arizona have with the people of New York City.

That still does not answer the question of how those states control an election by national popular vote. If anything, those states would grant less influence to one party with a national popular vote. As it stands, all of the electoral votes in Cali and NY go to the candidate with a plurality in each state. So those metro areas are already having a larger influence than they would with a popular vote, because the votes for losing candidates are ignored on the national level; if the metro areas control the vote, they are already giving every electoral vote to the Democratic candidates, and have done so since the 80s.

How would "a handful of cities" control the nation's election? Again, there were near 130,000,000 votes cast in the 2016 election. How many of those votes were from the cities in question, and did all of those cities vote for the same candidate?

The idea that a small number of cities will decide every election is tossed about like a fact, but I have never seen any statistics to actually back up the claim.

There are certainly issues with a national popular vote for president. That a handful of cities would control such a vote is not, I think, one of them.

Of course, it's possible that a national popular vote would cause a radical shift in the voting habits of the public which would render all I've said moot.

Here. You want an explanation of all the points against this, it's right here, including the one you keep refusing to understand. You're going to have to want to understand it, though.

National Popular Vote Compact is a Bad Idea

National Popular Vote Is a Bad Idea

Popular Vote Plan Would Do More Harm Than Good | RealClearPolitics

Maybe you misread my post. I clearly stated that there are issues with a national popular vote. I wasn't asking for an explanation of the various arguments against a national popular vote, I asked for an explanation of how a handful of cities could control the election when 130 million people vote for president.

None of those links in any way provided evidence that a handful of cities would control the election of president in a national popular vote. I'll ask again: How many people in the handful of cities you are talking about are voters, and how many of those do you think would vote for a single candidate?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, it just indicates that a handful of metropolitan areas have enough population to dominate elections and make the votes coming from less-populated areas irrelevant.

Which less-populated areas are "irrelevant"? Wouldn't the same reasoning apply to the current system, just on a state-wide level: the handful of metropolitan areas make the votes from other areas of the given state irrelevant?

I also still don't see how, considering that Clinton only got 6 million more votes than Trump in California and New York, those 2 states would control a popular vote election unless, maybe, the voters all went for a single candidate.

Metropolitan areas are always going to have an advantage over rural areas in terms of numbers. That's a given. However, there's a big difference between a state's electoral votes leaning toward its biggest population center and the entire nation's election being controlled by a handful of cities. For starters, the people of southern Arizona have a lot more in common with the people of Phoenix (I use this example because I live in Arizona) than the people of Arizona have with the people of New York City.

That still does not answer the question of how those states control an election by national popular vote. If anything, those states would grant less influence to one party with a national popular vote. As it stands, all of the electoral votes in Cali and NY go to the candidate with a plurality in each state. So those metro areas are already having a larger influence than they would with a popular vote, because the votes for losing candidates are ignored on the national level; if the metro areas control the vote, they are already giving every electoral vote to the Democratic candidates, and have done so since the 80s.

How would "a handful of cities" control the nation's election? Again, there were near 130,000,000 votes cast in the 2016 election. How many of those votes were from the cities in question, and did all of those cities vote for the same candidate?

The idea that a small number of cities will decide every election is tossed about like a fact, but I have never seen any statistics to actually back up the claim.

There are certainly issues with a national popular vote for president. That a handful of cities would control such a vote is not, I think, one of them.

Of course, it's possible that a national popular vote would cause a radical shift in the voting habits of the public which would render all I've said moot.

Here. You want an explanation of all the points against this, it's right here, including the one you keep refusing to understand. You're going to have to want to understand it, though.

National Popular Vote Compact is a Bad Idea

National Popular Vote Is a Bad Idea

Popular Vote Plan Would Do More Harm Than Good | RealClearPolitics

Maybe you misread my post. I clearly stated that there are issues with a national popular vote. I wasn't asking for an explanation of the various arguments against a national popular vote, I asked for an explanation of how a handful of cities could control the election when 130 million people vote for president.

None of those links in any way provided evidence that a handful of cities would control the election of president in a national popular vote. I'll ask again: How many people in the handful of cities you are talking about are voters, and how many of those do you think would vote for a single candidate?

Maybe you misread MY post. I stated that the one you keep misunderstanding is included. I just frankly don't consider your deliberate obtuseness to warrant the extra work of singling it out for you, nor do I particularly want to have to go through the same song and dance for another point of contention after this.

 

[Montrovant]

Which less-populated areas are "irrelevant"? Wouldn't the same reasoning apply to the current system, just on a state-wide level: the handful of metropolitan areas make the votes from other areas of the given state irrelevant?

I also still don't see how, considering that Clinton only got 6 million more votes than Trump in California and New York, those 2 states would control a popular vote election unless, maybe, the voters all went for a single candidate.

Metropolitan areas are always going to have an advantage over rural areas in terms of numbers. That's a given. However, there's a big difference between a state's electoral votes leaning toward its biggest population center and the entire nation's election being controlled by a handful of cities. For starters, the people of southern Arizona have a lot more in common with the people of Phoenix (I use this example because I live in Arizona) than the people of Arizona have with the people of New York City.

That still does not answer the question of how those states control an election by national popular vote. If anything, those states would grant less influence to one party with a national popular vote. As it stands, all of the electoral votes in Cali and NY go to the candidate with a plurality in each state. So those metro areas are already having a larger influence than they would with a popular vote, because the votes for losing candidates are ignored on the national level; if the metro areas control the vote, they are already giving every electoral vote to the Democratic candidates, and have done so since the 80s.

How would "a handful of cities" control the nation's election? Again, there were near 130,000,000 votes cast in the 2016 election. How many of those votes were from the cities in question, and did all of those cities vote for the same candidate?

The idea that a small number of cities will decide every election is tossed about like a fact, but I have never seen any statistics to actually back up the claim.

There are certainly issues with a national popular vote for president. That a handful of cities would control such a vote is not, I think, one of them.

Of course, it's possible that a national popular vote would cause a radical shift in the voting habits of the public which would render all I've said moot.

Here. You want an explanation of all the points against this, it's right here, including the one you keep refusing to understand. You're going to have to want to understand it, though.

National Popular Vote Compact is a Bad Idea

National Popular Vote Is a Bad Idea

Popular Vote Plan Would Do More Harm Than Good | RealClearPolitics

Maybe you misread my post. I clearly stated that there are issues with a national popular vote. I wasn't asking for an explanation of the various arguments against a national popular vote, I asked for an explanation of how a handful of cities could control the election when 130 million people vote for president.

None of those links in any way provided evidence that a handful of cities would control the election of president in a national popular vote. I'll ask again: How many people in the handful of cities you are talking about are voters, and how many of those do you think would vote for a single candidate?

Maybe you misread MY post. I stated that the one you keep misunderstanding is included. I just frankly don't consider your deliberate obtuseness to warrant the extra work of singling it out for you, nor do I particularly want to have to go through the same song and dance for another point of contention after this.

But none of those links provided evidence that a handful of cities would control the election in a national popular vote, which I already said in the post you just replied to. In fact, having just browsed all three links again, I don't see where any of them claims or even implies that a handful of cities would control the election in a national popular vote. You can say I'm being obtuse all you like, but posting links that in no way support the claim in contention isn't exactly a shining example of clear and specific communication.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Well **** me silly! I voted for Laxalt, mainly because I didn't feel a Democrat governor would care about the needs of the Republicans in our state. However, Sisolak just got me backing him, and probably a lot of the other rednecks in congressional district 3. Sandoval had my support, because I felt that he cared about all the Nevadan people, and after this move, Sisolak has the same support now.

It was the correct action--he must know a thing or two about how our govt. was set up.The tyranny of the majority...must be avoided.
I'm not a Trump fan..but that does not matter...it is the process that is important, in the long run..all Americans deserve a voice.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Good news. Now hopefully the other states making this unethical move of doing away with the electoral college will follow Nevada's Governor and do the right thing.

Twitter

Sisolak vetoes bill that would pledge Nevada's support to winner of national popular vote, reject Electoral College

I'm not a democrat, I'm an Independent.

Personally, I believe in the constitution. The constitution has both the electoral college and gives the states the right on how they should be allocated.

I don't care how a state does it, I don't live there. I just would like to see a republican get elected to the presidency by winning both the electoral college and the popular vote.

This one and the bush boy didn't in their original election to the White House.

I think there's something wrong with that. It divides the nation and does a lot of damage.

Actually, the electoral college is a check to make sure that the Democrat Party DOES NOT politicize and corrupt the Union to the degree that it results in one-party perpetual rule.
The electoral college prevents that major damage from happening, so you should celebrate it and see the glass half full, instead of trying to shield yourself from division.

Or vice versa..it is not in place just to check the Dems..and when, in the fullness of time, it checks the Repubs..remember this post..and tell if you still see the glass as half full...LOL!

 

[Montrovant]

Well **** me silly! I voted for Laxalt, mainly because I didn't feel a Democrat governor would care about the needs of the Republicans in our state. However, Sisolak just got me backing him, and probably a lot of the other rednecks in congressional district 3. Sandoval had my support, because I felt that he cared about all the Nevadan people, and after this move, Sisolak has the same support now.

It was the correct action--he must know a thing or two about how our govt. was set up.The tyranny of the majority...must be avoided.
I'm not a Trump fan..but that does not matter...it is the process that is important, in the long run..all Americans deserve a voice.

Is the election of the president the only thing that stands between the US succumbing to the tyranny of the majority? Having a representational government isn't the major check on that sort of mob rule, it's the electoral college?

I am constantly baffled by the implication so often put forth that this country is one election change away from a pure democracy; that somehow having the president elected by popular vote would circumvent the representative nature of government.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Well **** me silly! I voted for Laxalt, mainly because I didn't feel a Democrat governor would care about the needs of the Republicans in our state. However, Sisolak just got me backing him, and probably a lot of the other rednecks in congressional district 3. Sandoval had my support, because I felt that he cared about all the Nevadan people, and after this move, Sisolak has the same support now.

It was the correct action--he must know a thing or two about how our govt. was set up.The tyranny of the majority...must be avoided.
I'm not a Trump fan..but that does not matter...it is the process that is important, in the long run..all Americans deserve a voice.

Is the election of the president the only thing that stands between the US succumbing to the tyranny of the majority? Having a representational government isn't the major check on that sort of mob rule, it's the electoral college?

I am constantly baffled by the implication so often put forth that this country is one election change away from a pure democracy; that somehow having the president elected by popular vote would circumvent the representative nature of government.

It would be a crack in the wall....and a big one. The system works..it is not broken as some allege--and I see no reason to 'fix' it.

A better fix would be term limits.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

It isn't unconstitutional. The states doing this shit will give all their EC votes to the national pop vote winner.
Their citizens might not care for it but it is perfectly legal.

It’s legal, but really really stupid for the small states to cede their EC votes to the popular vote winner. It removes their influence, and creates a scenario by which a state could theoretically have all their citizens vote for one candidate, yet have their EC votes be the difference in electing the other candidate.