This is getting serious. There is a civil war raging in the USA in case you have not noticed. Everything except shooting between combatants has begun.


https://www.dailywire.com/news/47520/nevada-passes-bill-give-e*******l-v**es-national-james-barrett?utm_source=shapironewsletter-ae&utm_medium=email&utm_content=052219-news&utm_campaign=shapiroemail


Nevada Passes Bill To Give E*******l V**es To National Popular V**e Winner
Democratic p**********l candidate Hillary Clinton arrives onstage during a primary night rally at the Duggal Greenhouse in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, June 7, 2016 in the Brooklyn borough of New York City. Drew Angerer/Getty Images



By JAMES BARRETT
May 22, 2019
If Nevada's Democratic governor signs a bill passed by the state senate Tuesday into law, his state will have moved the National Popular V**e movement six v**es closer to effectively nullifying the E*******l College as established in the U.S. Constitution.


By a v**e of 12-8, the Nevada Senate passed AB 186 on Tuesday, which if signed by Gov. Steve Sisolak, will add Nevada's six e*******l v**es to the 189 v**es already pledged by 14 other states in the National Popular V**e Interstate Compact, which would "guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular v**es across all 50 states and the District of Columbia." If triggered, the pact would override the majority decision of v**ers in particular states.

Thus far, 14 states and one district have officially passed the measure, their collective e*******l v**e total currently at 189. The compact requires a minimum of 270 total pledged e*******l v**es to go into effect. Should Sisolak sign the bill, the total would edge up to 195 v**es.

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).

"The bill has passed one house in 9 additional states with 82 e*******l v**es (AR, AZ, ME, MI, MN, NC, NV, OK, OR), including a 40–16 v**e in the Republican-controlled Arizona House and a 28–18 in Republican-controlled Oklahoma Senate, and been approved unanimously by committee v**es in two additional Republican-controlled states with 26 e*******l v**es (GA, MO)," the National Popular V**e website explains.

As CNN underscores suggestively, the E*******l College "clinched President Donald Trump the 2016 p**********l victory despite Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton winning a popular-v**e majority by nearly 3 million v**es." Among the high-profile Democrats pushing for the elimination of the E*******l College are p**********l candidates, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (MA), Sen. Kamala Harris (CA), and former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (TX), CNN notes.

Including Trump's victory over Clinton, there have been a total of "five instances where a p**********l candidate has been elected without winning the popular v**e since the E*******l College was created in 1787," The Hill reports.

In a video for PragerU (below), E*******l College expert Tara Ross explains the rationale behind the current U.S. p**********l v****g system and summarizes some of the arguments against the National Popular V**e agreement, including the impact of states' widely varying v****g policies, the exponentially increased threat of v***r f***d, and the encouragement of p**********l candidates neglecting the needs and concerns of rural areas and smaller states.

"If NPV is adopted, and winning is only about getting the most v**es, a candidate might concentrate all of his efforts in the biggest cities, or the biggest states," she argues. "We could see the end of p**********l candidates who care about the needs and concerns of people in smaller states or outside of big cities."



Video and partial transcript below via PragerU:


In every p**********l e******n, only one question matters: which candidate will get the 270 v**es needed to win the E*******l College? Our Founders so deeply feared a tyranny of the majority that they rejected the idea of a direct v**e for President. That's why they created the E*******l College. For more than two centuries it has encouraged coalition building, given a voice to both big and small states, and discouraged v***r f***d.

Unfortunately, there is now a well-financed, below-the-radar effort to do away with the E*******l College. It is called National Popular V**e or NPV, and it wants to do exactly what the Founders rejected: award the job of President to the person who gets the most v**es nationally.

Even if you agree with this goal, it's hard to agree with their method. Rather than amend the Constitution, which they have no chance of doing, NPV plans an end run around it.

Here's what NPV does: it asks states to sign a contract to give their p**********l e*****rs to the winner of the national popular v**e instead of the winner of the state's popular v**e.

What does that mean in practice? It means that if NPV had been in place in 2004, for example, when George W. Bush won the national v**e, California's e*******l v**es would have gone to Bush, even though John Kerry won that state by 1.2 million v**es! Can you imagine strongly Democratic California calmly awarding its e*****rs to a Republican?

Another problem with NPV's plan is that it robs states of their sovereignty. A key benefit of the E*******l College system is that it decentralizes control over the e******n. Currently, a p**********l e******n is really 51 separate e******ns: one in each state and one in D.C.

These 51 separate processes exist, side-by-side, in harmony. They do not -- and cannot -- interfere with each other. California's e******n code applies only to California and determines that state's e*****rs. So a v**e cast in Texas can never change the identity of a California e*****r.

NPV would disrupt this careful balance. It would force all v**ers into one national e******n pool. Thus, a v**e cast in Texas will always affect the outcome in California. And the existence of a different e******n code in Texas always has the potential to unfairly affect a v**er in California.

Why? Because state e******n codes can differ drastically. States have different rules about early v****g, registering to v**e, and qualifying for the b****t. They have different policies regarding felon v****g. They have different triggers for recounts.

Each and every one of these differences is an opportunity for someone, somewhere to file a lawsuit claiming unfair treatment. Why should a v**er in New York get more or less time to early v**e than a v**er in Florida? Why should a h*****g chad count in Florida, but not in Ohio? The list of possible complaints is endless.

And think of the opportunities for v***r f***d if NPV is passed! Currently, an attempt to steal a p**********l e******n requires phony b****ts to appear or real b****ts to disappear in the right state or combination of states, something that is very hard to anticipate. But with NPV, v***r f***d anywhere can change the e******n results -- no need to figure out which states you must swing; just add or subtract the v**es you need -- or don't want -- wherever you can most easily get away with it.

And finally, if NPV is adopted, and winning is only about getting the most v**es, a candidate might concentrate all of his efforts in the biggest cities, or the biggest states. We could see the end of p**********l candidates who care about the needs and concerns of people in smaller states or outside of big cities.