EDITORIAL: Nevada would lose in Electoral College opt-out

A Henderson local walks away from a polling station after early election day ballot for the Clark County community election at the Galleria at Sunset shopping center in Henderson on Saturday, March 18, 2017. (Christian K. Lee/Las Vegas Review-Journal) @chrisklee_jpeg
If Democrats get their way, what happens here during governmental elections will not matter to anyone.

Nevada has actually developed itself as one of the most crucial states in governmental politics. It's an early state on the governmental nominating calendar.

Because of the Electoral College, that's. Governmental candidates don't win by receiving the most overall votes. Each state and Washington, D.C., performs its own different contest. The winner in each location receives electoral votes, which for states is the number of Congressional representatives. Nevada has 6 electoral votes, four House seats plus two Senators. A couple of states award electors by congressional district. There are 538 electoral votes, which suggests a candidate requires 270 electoral votes to win.

Nevada is among the country's few swing states. That means both campaigns compete strongly here. In contrast, California has 54 electoral votes. Because it's all but certain to vote Democratic, it's largely disregarded.

All that would change under Assembly Joint Resolution 6. Sponsored by a host of legislative Democrats, it's a constitutional change to join Nevada to the National Popular Vote Compact. In this arrangement, states would award their electors to the candidate winning one of the most votes nationally - - even if another candidate won their state. So, Nevada might elect Candidate A, however demand its electors vote for Candidate B.

When mentions with 270 electoral votes combine agree to sign up with, the compact would only go into result. Currently, 15 states and Washington, D.C., have accepted it.

As a constitutional change, Nevada's proposition would require to pass both homes this session and in 2025. The Assembly voted to authorize it last month. It would require voter approval in 2026.

There is a host of problems, both logistical and in principle, with this compact. Coming up with a vote overall is harder than it sounds. The founders purposefully didn't set up a direct democracy, which this seeks. If the U.S. Supreme Court would find consider this plan constitutional or not, it's unclear.

Nevada has a more useful concern. The Silver State would be upstaged by the Golden State if raw vote amounts to figured out governmental election results. Its population is more than 12 times larger.

California does not have the interests of Nevada in mind. Just take a look at water policy. That's one obvious factor Nevada political leaders should not outsource our election results to the impulses of Californians.