Kerby Anderson

More than a dozen states have joined the national effort to circumvent the Electoral College. It looked like Nevada was going to be the next state to join the nationwide effort. But the governor of the state used some common sense and decided to veto the bill.

He argued that the current effort would “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.” He should be applauded for seeing the problem with the National Popular Vote initiative.

The plan is for states to pledge that they will instruct their presidential electors to vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote, even if the voters in that state voted for the other candidate. The initiative doesn’t go into effect until enough states reach 270 electoral votes. Nevada was supposed to be another state added to that list and get the initiative even closer to the requisite number of electoral votes.

The governor explained that, “where Nevada’s interests could diverge from the interests of large states, I will always stand up for Nevada.” He is no doubt aware that in the last presidential campaign, the Trump campaign and the Clinton campaign held at least 17 major events in Nevada. Under a popular vote initiative, Nevada would merely become a flyover state.

Perhaps some of the other states (like Maine and Oregon) that are considering joining the National Popular Vote initiative should pay attention to the reasoning of the Nevada governor. Their influence as small states would certainly diminish if they play a part in attempting to demolish the Electoral College. Candidates would spend more time in big cities and avoid public appearances in small states. The current system forces presidential candidates to pay attention to those states.