Nevada Democratic governor vetoes national popular vote bill

[PoliticAverse]

Source: The Hill

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.

Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/446174-nevada-democratic-governor-vetoes-national-popular-vote-bill

[Tiggeroshii]

1. Wtf

[genxlib]

2. I absolutely detest the Electoral College

But I actually agree with him. I think this vote compact is a bad idea. I am not a constitutional scholar but I doubt it would hold up in court.

Changing the constitution to eliminate it is a non-starter because we will never get the necessary number of states to go along.

My push would be for a federal law that requires all states to apportion electors in a proportion to their statewide popular vote. That would not be a perfect approximation of the popular vote but it would be exponentially closer than the system we have now.

And I would argue that my system would be justifiable and constitutional based on the equal protection clause. Why should 49.9 percent of a swing state's votes get thrown away when being considered for the electoral college.

Just my opinion.

[Angleae]

4. The 10th Amendment would prohibit the federal govt from changing how the states appoint electors.

As the constitution specifies that it is the state legislatures that do the appointing of said electors.

[JustAnotherGen]

5. Totally get that

But each state has the right to award their ec votes in the manner they choose.

Fed Gov can't over reach in that way. They can't tell us what to do in NJ.

[Grins]

11. New Jersey was the 2nd state to get on the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

[LisaM]

6. I agree with you, even though the Electoral college has let us down in recent years.

For one thing, I'm a firm believer in the Law of Unintended Consequences..... I don't know that these pacts fully explore all the ramifications such a change would make.

We definitely need to do something, or people with even larger vote margins than * or Trump will get into office.

[LittleBunny]

15. Law of Unintended Consequences...

Imagine a strong independent campaign from the center-left like, say, Howard Schultz facing off against a progressive Democratic nominee, splitting the liberal vote and giving Trump a popular vote win?

People would be rethinking this "popular vote compact" real quick.

[IronLionZion]

12. It would be better for our party to take control of swing state legislatures

and pass those laws at the state level

[3Hotdogs]

16. The Constitution is not changed by this.

[Voltaire2]

3. Idiot.

[malchickiwick]

10. Please don't call my Democratic governor an "idiot" -- Lots of us campaigned hard for him.

You may not agree with his veto here, but please refrain from bashing good Democratic leaders. We are lucky to have him.

[MosheFeingold]

7. In the minority here, but I agree

The electoral college has worked both ways in my lifetime. Yes, it's a hindrance today, but won't be tomorrow.

It's an important part of the checks-and-balances.

[Shrek]

9. Could have gone that way in 2004

If Ohio had gone differently then it's possible Kerry could have won the Electoral College with fewer nationwide popular votes.

[MosheFeingold]

14. Could have gone that way in 2018

Indeed, it was a real fear of Clinton (Hillary) and why she neglected certain states.

She was concerned Trump would have claimed her presidency was illegitimate (which he would have).

This is a short term blip in our Republic. I can't believe the short memories people have.

[Polybius]

17. How has it worked both ways in your lifetime?

It has twice been never wrong in your lifetime (2000 and 2016), and each time was in favor of Republicans.

[MosheFeingold]

19. Apologies for the long delay in responding

I keep getting a relapse of pneumonia. It's bad an my age.

The last, and most significant time the popular vote went for the losing candidate in my lifetime was 1960, when the popular vote went for Richard Nixon, but John Kennedy ultimately won due to the structure of Alabama's electoral college.

I remember well, given I worked as a lawyer on the JFK campaign.

And before you run off to wikipedia to prove me wrong, wikipedia is incorrect. There is a fair article on the subject here:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/19/did_jfk_lose_the_popular_vote_115833.html

[Polybius]

21. No apology necessary

But I just can't agree. That's actually a conspiracy theory that's been running around for decades. Every major political site and official government site lists JFK as the popular vote and Electoral Vote winner in 1960. The article you posted is an opinion piece, and even that asks the question "Did JFK lose the popular vote?"

Hey, maybe you're right. But officially it's still JFK.

[MosheFeingold]

22. It's just math

Not sure how it could be classified as a conspiracy theory. The underlying counts are not in dispute; it’s just a matter of how it is allocated.

Again, I was a lawyer on the Kennedy campaign; I am intimately aware of the situation. The reason the count is officially tabulated differently now is candidly we were as a party very embarrassed by the racists in Alabama and the matter is complex so we took a position and no one cared enough until the recent close elections to challenge how the final number was reported.

[Grins]

8. Not the same thing, Governor

"...force Nevada’s electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, rather than the candidate Nevadans choose.” - Gov. Sisolak.

But, Governor, this only applies to a NATIONAL vote for one office. It doesn't matter who Nevadans, voted for, it matters who THE NATION collectively voted for. So who THE NATION voted for should be the priority. Your argument only makes sense if other states had a say in picking Nevada's U.S. Senators/Representatives.

Would the Governor allow Nevada Esmeralda, Eureka, and Story counties with a combined population of about 7,000, have more or equal say in Nevada elections than Clark, Washoe, and Lyon counties with a combined population of more than 3-million?

On EDIT: The bill passed both of Nevada's State Houses by a combined vote of 35-25. And yet one vote, outside those houses, blocked it.

"Will of the people!!!"

[brooklynite]

13. "And yet one vote, outside those houses, blocked it. "

Are you prepared to say that every Veto is a bad idea? Or just just vetos of the Bills you like?

[jgmiller]

18. As much as I hate what the electoral college has done to us

It is doing exactly what the southern states wanted it to do when it was created which means that he is right. Nevada is not southern but it is small and the purpose of the electoral college was to prevent larger northern (free) states from dominating the southern (slave) states. It should be abolished but from the point of view of any small state it is a bad idea to abolish it.

[MurrayDelph]

20. I won't go into details (again)

but what I would rather see done is a way to make the Electoral College more representative, but with safeguards to protect against shenanigans.