Assembly bill would dilute the voting power of Nevadans

There is a bill pending in the Legislature that would — and we are not making this up — dilute the voting power of every Nevadan in presidential elections.

A passel of Democrats have hatched Assembly Bill 274 that would rope Nevada into the conspiracy to subvert the Constitution and deny the wisdom of the Founders by joining an “Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote.” The change would take place when enough states join to constitute a majority of electoral votes.

The bill is to go before the Assembly Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections at 1:30 p.m. today.

Currently the president and vice president team that wins the majority of votes in Nevada gets the state’s six electoral votes, one for each representative and senator in Congress. AB274 would have those six votes go to whoever wins the national popular vote. This essentially cuts Nevada’s votes from six to four, since the votes nationwide would be proportional to population and exclude the power of our two senators.

Why would any sane person want to do that and let California and New York elect every president?

Yes, Hillary Clinton won more popular votes than Donald Trump, but he won more state electors, which is what the Founders envisioned, because ours is a federalist system, not a democracy. The Electoral College provides more power to the states. (Trump won the Electoral College vote by 304 to 227. Clinton won the popular vote by 2.9 million. She won California by 4 million votes. So Trump won the combined popular vote in the 49 other states. What about that California secession movement?)

Former Nevada Sen. Harry Reid has joined the fray, calling the Electoral College undemocratic.

“I believe that focusing on the Electoral College is important no matter how you do it, because what’s happened this decade, these last several elections, where we have clearly two elections, the Gore election and this election. In this election Hillary Clinton will wind up getting almost 3 million votes more than Trump. It’s time the system goes away. It is very undemocratic,” Reid said in an interview. “And we have a number of states that have taken care of this. It doesn’t have to be done with a constitutional amendment. And I think people should join together and get rid of this. It is unfair that presidential elections are focused on seven states. It’s wrong.”

Pay no attention to the fact Reid served in the Senate for 30 years, where each state gets two votes no matter the size of its population. Most undemocratic.



11 comments on “Assembly bill would dilute the voting power of Nevadans

  1. Barbara says:

    “Why would any sane person want to do that and let California and New York elect every president?” Answer – they wouldn’t. Democrats just cannot accept that they lost the election. Anything that will ensure a Democrat victory is okay by them even if it means loss of political power to their home state. Another example of the liberal mind in action.

  2. The Tea Partiers in Nevada are pointing out this little hurdle:

    Article 1, Section 10, 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.

  3. Bruce Feher says:

    More time wasting nonsense! And these people want to have a full-time legislature? Do your stinking jobs! In case you don’t remember what that is, you are supposed to make LIFE BETTER for the people of Nevada. Get at it already!!!!

  4. Barbara says:

    I think Reid is incorrect when he states it does not have to be passed via a constitutional amendment. i don’t believe even Congress would have the authority to pass a law that changes the means of electing the President. It took the 17th amendment to change the means of electing Senators. Why would the means of electing the President be any different?

  5. Anonymous says:

    I trust all republicans, and conservatives, who are so outraged today, attacked orange man, otherwise known as “their president”, when he said:

    “The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”
    Donald Trump November 6, 2012

  6. Anonymous says:

    Course,(he,he,he) as we all “know” what’s good for the goose, isn’t necessarily good for the gander; eh “conservatives”?

    “During Obama’s terms of office and the election campaign, Donald Trump frequently took aim at Obama’s golf games, decrying them as scandalous in light of “the problems and difficulties facing the US,” and promising that if elected, “I going to be working for you. I’m not going to have time to go play golf.”

    Trump has visited his golf courses 10 times since taking office, eight weeks ago

    Those “principles” we heard so much about from you guys, just seem so like…yesterday.


  7. Barbara says:

    Yes I did. I believe my comment was that this was consistent with my belief that Trump has probably never read the Constitution.

    The U.S. Constitution does give the state legislature authority to appoint the electors. What does the Nevada Constitution say about electors casting their votes? Are the electors free to vote for any candidate, or are they bound to vote for the person receiving the most votes in their state? Any one know?

  8. 2010 Nevada Code
    Chapter 298 Presidential Electors and Elections
    NRS 298.050 Convening and voting for President and Vice President.

    NRS 298.050 Convening and voting for President and Vice President. The presidential electors, when convened, shall vote by ballot for one person for President and one person for Vice President of the United States, one of whom, at least, must not be an inhabitant of this State. The presidential electors shall vote only for the nominees for President and Vice President of the party or the independent candidates that prevailed in this State in the preceding general election.

  9. Barbara says:

    So it appears the manner of voting by electors is proscribed by statute, but not a part of the Nevada Constitution? If so, it would appear that the legislature could change the statute to mandate that the electors shall vote for the candidate that won the national popular vote irrespective of the results of the Nevada general election. That would be the effect of this stupid bill.

    Picture this. A powerful home state politician (let’s say the Dems. own Harry Reid) runs for President and wins Nevada overwhelmingly. However, he is not quite so popular in the other states, and he narrowly looses the national popular vote by a small margin, let’s say to the Republican candidate Donald Trump. Nevada’s electors, under the new law, would be required to disregard the will of Nevadans and cast their votes to elect Donald Trump as President. And Alas, if Nevada electors were voting to reflect the will of the citizens of their state, Harry Reid would be President as he would have reached the magic threshold of 270 electoral votes. Oooo, what a nightmare.

    Electors should be reflecting the will of the people of Nevada, not the whole country.

  10. Steve says:

    If that passes out of the Legislature, my bet is Sandoval will veto it.

    Along with a bunch of others unless he gets what he wants from his ESA law. If that happens, all bets are off.

    With Sandoval, everything revolves around ESA.

  11. The Clowns are on full parade in Carson City…their goal is the Californication of Nevada…which was the reason most of these unhinged progressives (marxists) moved here to escape in the first place. Enough already…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s