Nevada Senate passes bill disenfranchising its voters

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
Staff member
PREMO Member

I'm amazed that states are doing this, but then I remember that it's a pack of short-sighted sore loser Democrat controlled states acting out their tantrum.

The 15 jurisdictions, which are predominantly blue, that have signed on thus far are: California (55), Colorado (9), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), the District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Massachusetts (11), Maryland (10), New Jersey (14), New Mexico (5), New York (29), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (12).

These states typically go for the Democrat anyway, so there's no potential to hurt the Republicans with this act of immaturity, but it DOES have enormous potential to hurt the Democrats and give Trump an unprecedented landslide in 2020. Imagine how fun it will be when Trump wins the popular vote and we get to see CA's electoral votes go to Trump.

😄

And honestly, I want that more than anything. The keening and wailing will be delightful.
 

Yooper

Bag the stock, not the barrel
PREMO Member
I understand that the national aspect of this movement cannot (more likely than not) be challenged until the 270 electoral vote mark is passed, but why couldn't voters in individual states challenge the respective state legislature voting to join the movement?

The enormity of the error of this movement beggars all understanding. Unless, of course, one is into mob rule. Then it makes perfect sense.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I understand that the national aspect of this movement cannot (more likely than not) be challenged until the 270 electoral vote mark is passed, but why couldn't voters in individual states challenge the respective state legislature voting to join the movement?

The enormity of the error of this movement beggars all understanding. Unless, of course, one is into mob rule. Then it makes perfect sense.

--- End of line (MCP)
Is there a difference between mob rule and Democrat rule/??
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member

I'm amazed that states are doing this, but then I remember that it's a pack of short-sighted sore loser Democrat controlled states acting out their tantrum.

The 15 jurisdictions, which are predominantly blue, that have signed on thus far are: California (55), Colorado (9), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), the District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Massachusetts (11), Maryland (10), New Jersey (14), New Mexico (5), New York (29), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (12).

These states typically go for the Democrat anyway, so there's no potential to hurt the Republicans with this act of immaturity, but it DOES have enormous potential to hurt the Democrats and give Trump an unprecedented landslide in 2020. Imagine how fun it will be when Trump wins the popular vote and we get to see CA's electoral votes go to Trump.

😄

And honestly, I want that more than anything. The keening and wailing will be delightful.
We were only joking, you have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to have taken me seriously.
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
I understand that the national aspect of this movement cannot (more likely than not) be challenged until the 270 electoral vote mark is passed, but why couldn't voters in individual states challenge the respective state legislature voting to join the movement?
--- End of line (MCP)
I imagine they could. In MD, it would require 69,135 signatures for a veto referendum to be placed on the 2020 ballot. With the 2:1 advantage Dems have over Reps in MD, it seems unlikely the referendum would pass though.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Maryland did that a couple of years ago. It's pretty sad, but with Annapolis filled with democrats it's not unexpected.
 

awpitt

Main Streeter

I'm amazed that states are doing this, but then I remember that it's a pack of short-sighted sore loser Democrat controlled states acting out their tantrum.

The 15 jurisdictions, which are predominantly blue, that have signed on thus far are: California (55), Colorado (9), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), the District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Massachusetts (11), Maryland (10), New Jersey (14), New Mexico (5), New York (29), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (12).

These states typically go for the Democrat anyway, so there's no potential to hurt the Republicans with this act of immaturity, but it DOES have enormous potential to hurt the Democrats and give Trump an unprecedented landslide in 2020. Imagine how fun it will be when Trump wins the popular vote and we get to see CA's electoral votes go to Trump.

😄

And honestly, I want that more than anything. The keening and wailing will be delightful.

It's actually hard to tell who this would hurt. Looking at 2016, if this Interstate Compact had been in place, Hillary would've won as she got the most popular votes.

The point is that if this Interstate Compact takes effect, each state's individual popular vote count will no longer matter. What will matter is the overall popular vote for the entire country. The candidate getting the most popular votes will get all of the Electoral votes from all of the states that are part of this Interstate Compact which would represent at least 270 Electoral votes. Again, if this Interstate Compact had been in place in 2016, Hillary would've won because she got the most popular votes nationwide Which would've meant that the 270 Electoral votes controlled by the states within the Interstate Compact would've gone to Hillary thus she would've also won the Electoral vote and the presidency.
 

Yooper

Bag the stock, not the barrel
PREMO Member
It's actually hard to tell who this would hurt.
I respectfully disagree.

This was "argued" during the Constitutional Convention that gave us the Electoral College. Though the states have changed the effect remains the same: large, homogeneous voting populations would have a negative effect by conflating national governance with these population centers.

I am against this regardless of who stands to benefit. We are NOT a national democracy; rather, we are state-level democracies that come together at the national level as states.

Let's say the Compact is in place for 2020 and that Trump wins the popular vote. How many NYers or CAlifornians will be happy giving their electoral votes to him? How happy given the latest voting percentages in these example states?

The idea that a state could vote one way but have to give its electoral votes to the candidate that didn't win the state is not only absurd and offensive it's a dismantling of one of this nation's founding concepts: united States.

The Compact is a horrible idea whose death cannot come fast enough. The only reason this has "shiny object" appeal to the Democrats is because they are looking for every way to leverage their East & West Coast population centers. If the show were on the other foot the Dems would all of a sudden be all constitutional in their approach.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
I respectfully disagree.

This was "argued" during the Constitutional Convention that gave us the Electoral College. Though the states have changed the effect remains the same: large, homogeneous voting populations would have a negative effect by conflating national governance with these population centers.

I am against this regardless of who stands to benefit. We are NOT a national democracy; rather, we are state-level democracies that come together at the national level as states.

Let's say the Compact is in place for 2020 and that Trump wins the popular vote. How many NYers or CAlifornians will be happy giving their electoral votes to him? How happy given the latest voting percentages in these example states?

The idea that a state could vote one way but have to give its electoral votes to the candidate that didn't win the state is not only absurd and offensive it's a dismantling of one of this nation's founding concepts: united States.

The Compact is a horrible idea whose death cannot come fast enough. The only reason this has "shiny object" appeal to the Democrats is because they are looking for every way to leverage their East & West Coast population centers. If the show were on the other foot the Dems would all of a sudden be all constitutional in their approach.

--- End of line (MCP)

I won't ague with your theories and such. I will say that the most recent actual election we have that we can compare this Compact idea with is the 2016 election. In that election, Clinton won the most popular votes nationwide. Had the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact been in place in 2016, Clinton would've been awarded 270 Electoral votes from the states who are part of the Compact. That would've given her the presidency. It's that simple. There is no telling how this whole thing would impact future elections. No one knows.
 

Yooper

Bag the stock, not the barrel
PREMO Member
I won't ague with your theories and such. I will say that the most recent actual election we have that we can compare this Compact idea with is the 2016 election. In that election, Clinton won the most popular votes nationwide. Had the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact been in place in 2016, Clinton would've been awarded 270 Electoral votes from the states who are part of the Compact. That would've given her the presidency. It's that simple. There is no telling how this whole thing would impact future elections. No one knows.
Let me put it another way.

If you subtract the overwhelming Clinton vote in CA (& perhaps NY) to make CA (perhaps, both states) still go to Clinton (for Electoral College purposes), but at a lower margin of victory (in line with voting percentages in most of the other 49/48 states + DC (a whole separate issue)) Trump wins the popular vote.

So the national popular vote was swung by pretty much just CA. Maybe you're okay with it, but I'm not comfortable with California entirely dictating the direction of this country (it already dictates too much of it as is).

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Top