Nevada governor vetoed the National Popular vote

Bravo to Nevada's governor. Not all the Dems have lost their minds.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: fredrodgers1960

Any State that would pass this would end up at the SC. Once there, the constitution wins.

Actually, the Constitution says little about the choosing of the electors... it pretty much leaves that up to the states. A Supreme Court decision would likely favor the states.

TheRedneck

But the electors are supposed to choose who their vote goes to. It would be like the government telling you who to vote for.

So I am not sure which way the SC would go.

According to the U.S. Code:

UNITED STATES CODE

The following provisions of law governing Presidential Elections are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended):

Manner of voting § 8. The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.

Twelfth Amendment

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; [u]they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President[/u], and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate------

Appears to me that the electors are instructed to name the winner of the popular vote in the elector's district...Seems pretty cut and dried to me...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Sly1one

99% of the world are the imbeciles.

That seems high. But there are suckers born every day to paraphrase PT Barnum. Most anybody properly motivated can overcome their ignorance.

a reply to: incoserv

It's a socialist movement. They can't gain power without leveraging their major metros. In my lifetime we'll see so many of our constitutional rights gone because socialism eventually always wins and then people have to fight for the freedom.

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,

Thats why we have an electoral college. Shutup, stop being lazy, and campaign in the MidWest. You'll find out that they are the same as the rest of Americans.

a reply to: Iscool

Except in winner take all.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Get back to me when votes for one city, Chicago, New York, San Fransisco, and every other large city who holds sway over states get their influence removed.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

As any governor should this bill steals the vote from people of said state and gives it to the cities of la,and nyc.

a reply to: EternalSolace

I am thinking we should make each county count equal. As it is it will soon be impossible to win without catering solely to big cities. When the founder's created this system the big city problem did not exist.

I wonder if this would be a catalyst for a civil war? It would essentially make a few select states the overlords of the rest of us. I wonder how the sides would be lined up in this case. When I look at the entire map, its all red with blotches of red. Event in heavey blue states they are surrounded by red. Would be interesting.

Federalist papers #68 explains the spirit of the electoral college and why anything but this is mob rule where 2 wolves and a sheep get to decide what's for dinner.

a reply to: Scifi2424

It would be terrifying for the people in big cities with no food starving to death.

But now it's your guy... so it's somehow different.

The very stable genius also didn't notice that Obama won the popular vote.

a reply to: LordAhriman

I never said anything then, so your attempt to make it hypocrisy is a false one. Keep trying.

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: fredrodgers1960

Any State that would pass this would end up at the SC. Once there, the constitution wins.

Actually, the Constitution says little about the choosing of the electors... it pretty much leaves that up to the states. A Supreme Court decision would likely favor the states.

TheRedneck

Slippery slope as this threatens the very foundation of America.

That is silly. Electors are already free agents.

There is no Federal law that requires Electors to even vote as they have pledged.
Even the state law (only 29 states have binding laws on electors) are without teeth, with fines around 1k for not voting for their states popular vote.

Over the years, however, despite legal oversight, a number of electors have violated their state’s law binding them to their pledged vote. However, these violators often only face being charged with a misdemeanor or a small fine, usually $1,000. Many constitutional scholars agree that electors remain free agents despite state laws and that, if challenged, such laws would be ruled unconstitutional. Therefore, electors can decline to cast their vote for a specific candidate (the one that wins the popular vote of their state), either voting for an alternative candidate, or abstaining completely.

archive.fairvote.org...

It probably won't matter in the long run how Legislatures and Governors feel about this issue. If these laws ever reach the critical mass they need to be triggered there are two possible outcomes. 1) The state citizenry will have voted for the national popular vote candidate; in which case it's no different than the current winner take all allocations of EC votes. 2) the states citizenry will have voted for the national popular vote loser; in which case the state will defy the will of its people and allocate their EC votes to the person the state did not vote for.

Again if 1 happens no big difference. If 2 happens there will be riots in the streets of that state and the people currently in power will be under tremendous pressure to nullify this silly compact. People who like this idea only do so because they think it will help their political tribe; the minute it doesn't they will demand change.

These laws can effect maybe one election cycle in a negative way. After that they will be done away with.

a reply to: fredrodgers1960
fredrodgers, I agree with you that the SC would invalidate the actions of these states. Provided they stick to the US Constitution. My concern is the length of time it would take to get it to the SC. My sense of it is that once this coalition has the 270 electoral votes to elect the president they will only them cast them in that manner. If the votes are cast in December, when the electoral college actually votes for president,opponents will only have until Jan 20, inauguration day, to have the SC reverse it. Then all H E double hockey sticks will break out. Which of course is one of the desired results.
Section 1 Article 10 IMHO SHOULD stop them in their tracks. However, I have not heard any opponents bring this up and am very curious as to why. 3rd para Section 1 Article 10 reads-

"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."

The group that is behind this movement is actually calls it the "National Popular Vote Interstate COMPACT".
We will see....

a reply to: Iscool
They are supposed to submit a ballot that is informed by their constituents votes. However there are several different major versions of how the vote is supposed to come to. Some states (most) allow for faithless electors, as in the elector votes against the way their constituents told them to. Furthermore the way that different states apportion their votes (internally) and allow their votes to be cast can also create pretty vast changes in how the electoral college looks at the state level.

For instance winner take all states. Did a person really win all of the apportioned EC votes in the state? In most cases no, however some states (most) have decided to use a winner take all system.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Yeah , Because Nevada's Electoral Votes would then Become Meaningless ...........Duh ?

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Kudos to him for not suppressing his own state's voice. Imagine if it was the popular vote, everyone would be fly over country except CA, NY, and Texas. NO one would give a fly what other states think.

I do think this is all a waste of time though, being that it is unconstitutional and will be reverse in the end. Dems leading their herds to a ditch as usual with dead end policies.