Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleLetter to the Editor:
Bill to change vote would hurt Nevada
Saturday, April 25, 2009 | 2:04 a.m.
The Democratic Assembly just passed a bill stating that all five of Nevada’s electoral college votes are to be cast for the presidential candidate who wins the national vote, even if that candidate loses in Nevada. Essentially your vote for president would no longer count.
All the Democrats voted for this bill, so they’re are saying that there is nothing special or unique about Nevada — we’re the same as every other state. If enough other states pass similar legislation, and this bill were to go into effect, presidential candidates will have no reason to adopt any of Nevada’s issues as their own, and they will merely vote in favor of the things that big-state voters care about.
Have these Democrats ever heard of Yucca Mountain? Thanks to President Barack Obama, there will be no dumping at Yucca. And why is that? Because candidate Obama wanted our five electoral votes.
Be honest. Do you really believe that Sen. Obama of Illinois cared one iota about nuclear waste being dumped in the desert at a place called Yucca?
I would wager that every one of those Democrats campaigned against Yucca Mountain dumping; they’ve won that battle, but they’re too ignorant to realize how they won. Now the Democrats want to take away your five electoral votes largely because they still haven’t gotten over Bush v. Gore.
The Democratic majority just voted to make our presidential votes worthless. How dare they? Our votes for Assembly members are not worthless yet. We should use them to vote out everyone who voted for this bill.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- Photos: Olivia Culpo, 20, of Rhode Island is crowned 2012 Miss USA at Planet Hollywood
- Photos: Derek Hough celebrates 27th birthday at Tabu Ultra Lounge
- More than 43,000 have voted early in Clark County
- Firefighters respond to reports of explosion; find vacant building in flames
- Learning about fans of the Electric Daisy Carnival will help Las Vegas court them long-term
Everything Under the Sun
Blogs
The Kats Report
Las Vegas Philharmonic says search for new music director to begin 'immediately' (1 Comment)
With Shenandoah project stalled, Wayne Newton hits back legally (7 Comments)
Where does a Playmate play when she turns 21? Vegas! (3 Comments)
Ice Ice Billy
The road to six-toed cats and Mayor Bubba
The Kats Report
David Itkin tells L.V. Philharmonic officials he's on his way out (14 Comments)
Diamond Dave sells it well as Van Halen pours out the power at MGM Grand (2 Comments)
Entering debut at Tryst, Nick Hissom is a model for a rapid rise to prominence (3 Comments)
- Locally owned and independent since 1950; Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, best news website in the nation & DuPont Award for broadcast journalism
Excellent letter. The electoral college isn't an antiquated concoction by pre-enlightened ignoramuses. Our nation's founders saw further into the future than any one of our current Democratic state assemblymen. They understood that our country is a federal system consisting of sovereign states united under a common interest. To preserve the voices of both the individual citizens and the sovereign states in national legislation, they created a bicameral Congress with one house representing the citizens and one representing the states. Preserving that rationale for our nationally elected executives, our founders created the electoral college, which combines the voices of the citizens and the states into one system. A tangible result of this elegant solution is the letter-writer's Yucca Mountain example. Bravo.
Nothing new, here - Democrats scrapping part of the Constitution. But, this senseless proposal with not survive a US Supreme Court decision.
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states.
Of the 22 medium-smallest states (those with three, four, five, or six electoral votes), only New Hampshire (with four electoral votes), New Mexico (five electoral votes), and Nevada (five electoral votes) have been battleground states in recent elections. The voters in the other 19 small states and big states, such as California, New York, and Texas were ignored.
98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by 1,659 state legislators -- 763 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 896 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware --75%, Maine -- 71%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 73% , Massachusetts -- 73%, New York -- 79%, and Washington -- 77%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 27 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes -- 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
What the Founding Fathers said in the U.S. Constitution is "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote.
In 1789 only three states used the winner-take-all rule.
There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.
As a result of changes in state laws, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, along district lines (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines.
72% OF NEVADA VOTERS SUPPORT A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IN DECEMBER 2008 POLL
A survey of 800 Nevada voters conducted on December 21-22, 2008 showed 72% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 80% for a national popular vote among Democrats, 66% among Republicans, and 68% among Others.
By age, support for a national popular vote was 75% among 18-29 year olds, 61% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 73% for those older than 65.
By gender, support for a national popular vote was 80% among women and 63% among men.
By race, support for a national popular vote was 73% among whites (representing 74% of respondents), 51% among African Americans (representing 8% of respondents), 80% among Hispanics (representing 14% of respondents), and 64% among Others (representing 4% of respondents).
see www.NationalPopularVote.com
mvymvy:
From the array of statistics you have garnered, I am guessing this issue is of paramount importance to you. From your passion on the subject, I'm also guessing you are a Democrat, and that your passion stems from the 2000 election. With all due respect for your effort, I put the following:
Federalist Paper #68, by Alexander Hamilton, is the only paper addressing the method of electing the president and vice-president. He begins by saying that the method decided upon was the least-discussed part of the new Constitution, because there was so much agreement on it. The only rationale he gives for the method is that it ensures that a person of quality, judgment, and trustworthiness is elected president. A direct vote by the people, he says, and I assume there was widespread agreement, if not unanimity among the Convention delegates, lays open the possibility that someone with ill intent toward the U.S. might be elected to the nation's highest, most prestigious and most powerful office. The National Popular Vote initiative would do just that.
In addiion, while the Constitution does not require, or even suggest, that the states use a winner-take-all method for their electors, I believe that was the method chosen by all, or nearly all, of the original states. That tells me that it was the method the framers' assumed would be used. And that 48 out of 50 use it today tells me that it is still assumed to be the framers' intent. I do wonder what the outcome of every presidential election would have been if a proportional allocation by congressional district and two for each state had been used. I doubt there would be much difference, if any. Either way, negating the electoral college, to me, makes the process worse, not better.
Presidential elections are decided on the basis of the popular vote and the vote of the states. The electoral college process takes both into account. The result sometimes is different from a straight popular vote, but that does not make the result invalid, nor does it disenfranchise anyone. The states have a say, also.