• Electoral College Veto

    From Lee Lofaso@2:221/360 to All on Fri May 31 20:38:56 2019
    Hello Everybody,

    Should the US continue to use the electoral college system
    as the basis for choosing its presidents? Most people in Nevada
    think so. But not all of them, as the governor has vetoed a
    bill passed by both houses to do just that -

    Nevada Democratic governor vetoes national popular vote bill

    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

    Any comments?

    --Lee

    --
    Get Her Wet Here

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: - nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland - (2:221/360)
  • From Mike Powell@1:2320/105 to Lee Lofaso on Fri May 31 19:27:00 2019
    Should the US continue to use the electoral college system
    as the basis for choosing its presidents? Most people in Nevada
    think so. But not all of them, as the governor has vetoed a
    bill passed by both houses to do just that -

    Any comments?

    Signing a bill pledging your state's electoral college votes to whoever
    wins the national popular vote is basically telling your state's citizens
    that their votes count even less than they do now. The way it is now,
    their votes decide who their state electorate votes for (barring any
    unfaithful electors)... doing it the way the bill says to means that it does not matter how the state's citizens vote because their state is always going
    to the winner of the rest of the country.

    ---
    * SLMR 2.1a * Math problems? Call 1-800-10x*(24y-3z^2)-(4y^2+10x^2)
    * Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:221/360 to Mike Powell on Sun Jun 2 00:14:02 2019
    Hello Mike,

    Should the US continue to use the electoral college system
    as the basis for choosing its presidents? Most people in Nevada
    think so. But not all of them, as the governor has vetoed a
    bill passed by both houses to do just that -

    Any comments?

    Signing a bill pledging your state's electoral college votes to whoever
    wins the national popular vote is basically telling your state's citizens >that their votes count even less than they do now.

    Their votes would be counted as part of the national popular vote,
    as it is now. Except their votes would actually be counted, as the
    national popular vote would be direct democracy rather than what we
    have now.

    It would be more like having one big giant state with
    only the popular vote counting towards who gets elected
    president/vice president. Direct democracy. Nothing
    indirect. The people themselves voting directly for
    their candidate(s) of choice.

    A number of other states have passed this type of legislation.
    At present, that number amounts to about 170 electoral votes.
    It takes 270 electoral votes for a candidate to win. Therefore,
    if enough states amounting to 270 electoral votes decide to use
    the national popular vote as their decision as to who to vote
    for, then the national popular vote would in effect replace the
    electoral college - without the need to amend the Constitution.

    The way it is now, their votes decide who their state electorate votes for
    (barring any unfaithful electors)...

    Indirect democracy. With no guarantee their choice will be elected
    by the electors, or even by the electors chosen by their candidate.

    doing it the way the bill says to means that it does not matter how the
    state's citizens vote because their state is always going
    to the winner of the rest of the country.

    With direct democracy, all votes are counted. With indirect
    democracy, no votes are guaranteed to be counted.

    The way the bill is structured, it would only take effect if the
    total number of states that have passed the same type of legislation
    amounts to at least 270 electoral votes. Anything less would make
    it frivolous.

    Should we have direct elections for president/vice president?
    Or should we retain the electoral college system as our basis?

    In the 2000 presidential election between Bush and Gore, the
    state of Florida was prepared to completely do away with the popular
    vote in Florida, the secretary of state acting on Jeb Bush's behalf
    to have the Florida legislature name its own electors - who would
    vote for George W. Bush, as directed by his brother. This was their
    fallback position had Al Gore been shown to have received more valid
    popular votes cast than George W. Bush.

    As can plainly be seen, we the people have no real vote at all.
    And neither to the electors supposedly chosen by we the people.

    Fortunately, nine justices of the USSC stepped in and decided
    the matter once and for all - by a five to four vote. Thus negating
    all the popular votes cast throughout the nation. As well as the
    electoral college (which was never mentioned by any of the justices).

    --Lee

    --
    Erections, That's Our Game

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: - nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland - (2:221/360)