Democrats are angry that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and lost the presidency. They have demanded an end to the Electoral College. At the same time, liberal/leftist states are supporting a similar threat, the National Popular Vote Compact.

Nevada planned to join the NPV, but the Democratic governor put an end to their dream. He vetoed it.

He is the first Democrat governor to reject the bill. He put his state first.

My statement on #AB186: Over the past several weeks, my office has heard from thousands of Nevadans across the state urging me to weigh the state’s role in our national elections. After thoughtful deliberation, I have decided to veto Assembly Bill 186. (1/) — Governor Sisolak (@GovSisolak) May 30, 2019

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. (2/) — Governor Sisolak (@GovSisolak) May 30, 2019

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. As Nevada’s governor, I am obligated to make such decisions according to my own conscience. (3/) — Governor Sisolak (@GovSisolak) May 30, 2019

In cases like this, where Nevada’s interests could diverge from the interests of large states, I will always stand up for Nevada. (4/4) — Governor Sisolak (@GovSisolak) May 30, 2019

He has that exactly right. Governor Sisolak is the first Democrat governor faced with this decision to realize it takes his state’s voice away.

The NPV would nullify the voices of less populated states and make serfs out of them.

The bill would lead to populous states like California and New York controlling the presidency ad infinitum.

They need 270 electoral votes to reach their goal of making this law and are 81 votes away. Getting to the 270 will be difficult and would require red-leaning states to join the compact.

This is unconstitutional but it would create a terrible mess if they make it. The lawsuits alone could hold up the elections and the fighting would be very damaging to our system of government.

WHAT THIS MEANS IN SIMPLER TERMS

Dan McLaughlin explained what this means. He uses a hypothetical example: R candidate wins 48 states by identical 54-46 margins, D wins CA, NY & DC by 75-25 margins, D wins national popular vote.

I used this hypothetical example: R candidate wins 48 states by identical 54-46 margins, D wins CA, NY & DC by 75-25 margins, D wins national popular vote. Who should win? pic.twitter.com/832nMi9j88 — Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) May 3, 2019