So yesterday, the Nevada state Senate voted to join on to the national popular vote organizations
packed, uh, to give no matter what, to give the winner of the popular vote in a federal
election in the, uh, election for the presidency to give them their electoral votes.
This is, this is huge, right?
The governor has assigned it yet I believe the vote fell along the lines in the, in the
bottle fell 12 to eight, uh, 12, uh, Democrats versus eight Republicans along party lines.
The governor who is a Democrat, hasn't signed on to it yet, but according to the National
Popular Vote Organization, uh, there are some 14 states, um, which would make Nevada number
15, uh, that have signed on to committing their electoral votes to the winner of the
popular vote no matter what their individual state, um, said.
Now this is highly controversial, highly controversial because what number one on the flip side,
we do know, um, what happened in 2000, I don't know if any of you were a, I don't know how
old you are, but I remember that was my first election.
I remember how devastating it was for George W. Bush to win, um, because of, uh, the electoral
college and more specifically because of the Supreme Court, but that's an entirely different
conversation for an entirely different day.
But then we saw again with Hillary Clinton, she lost, even though she won the popular
vote.
Uh, the flip side of the argument is that if a president, our, if our system does away
completely with the electoral college, then that would give no incentive to politicians
to campaign in smaller, rural areas, smaller rural states.
But, uh, the counterpoint to that is that the electorial college gives too much power
to these states.
Um, when it, especially when you see the presidency being carried by, um, someone who does not
win the popular vote, um, phase this, this, we're a long way from doing away with the
electoral college to be sure.
But this is a bold statement and this is a statement that really circumvents the electoral
college altogether because they're going state by state, by state, and they're eliminating
it at that level, um, by getting people to sign on to this compact.
Um, I, I really can't, I really, I can't say that I'm not concerned about rural, rural
states, uh, but they're certainly not concerned with their overall impact.
They, they would rather have the ability to impact us in a disproportionate way than to
face a situation where we actually look at, um, the popular vote more than anything else.
Now, how would that, could that potentially backfire?
Clearly, right?
It could particularly backed by for Democrats, but I don't really see how it would backfire
anytime soon.
Uh, because the popular vote is the popular vote.
More Americans are progressive.
I don't care and liberal, I don't care how conservatives try to spin it.
Conservatives have a very strong, um, stranglehold on rural states.
Alabama, Mississippi, Utah, deep red states.
Georgia is slowly but surely turning purple, but it remains to be seen how soon it'll turn
blue.
But in the smaller states with extremely rural populations, Republicans have a stranglehold
on them, uh, simply because just the difference of the difference of the regents, right?
Different belief systems, different cultures in those states.
And they understand that they can absolutely ignore California because they know they don't
stand a chance of winning in California.
And so all they do is cater to the smaller states.
What happens, we get nationalized politics based on the belief systems of small rural
states who are clearly out of step with the majority of America.
That is a problem, right?
And if you want, if you want to be equitable in this, and you don't want to just play hardball
politics because I'm prone to play hardball, Fall Ball politics with this and say to hell
with them.
I mean, who cares what, who cares what these small states have to say when they don't care
about how their politics and their belief systems are hurting millions of Americans
who don't believe what they believe, right?
You don't it, I'm, I'm inclined to play hardball with them.
If you don't care that the majority of Americans believe in a woman's right to choose, why
should we care when you're vote doesn't really count because we do away with the electoral
colleges.
I mean, that's what I'm inclined to believe.
But if you want to, you know, be equitable in this and you want to address their concerns
about them not having a say in the, uh, the election of the presidency, well then you
have to speak to the caliber of the candidate, like, you know, speak to the caliber of the
candidate.
If they avoid these large, these small states, then what does that say about them as individual
and the respect that they have for all of America?
Right?
It becomes an issue of the candidate more so than it becomes an issue about our overall
system.
Because right now our overall system is being held hostage by conservative quote unquote
values.
I don't believe that their values, but they're going to call them values.
I Aye.
They are definitely not moral values.
We are being held hostage across the nation of hundreds of millions of people were being
held hostage by the belief systems of a few people in rural counties.
And listen, I grew up in the south, I lived in Mississippi, I've lived in Alabama, I currently
live in Georgia.
I spent some time up north, but for the most part, I've made a tour of the south.
I'm not trying to slam on the south, but lesson, I mean, ours are even in small rural communities.
Some of those are great communities, but the reality of it is, is that right now, because
of our electoral college, these communities have been able to nationalize their local
belief systems and, and have it Trump the will of the majority when the will of the
majority is overwhelmingly progressive.
We're being burdened down by the beliefs and the in the, uh, yeah, we can leave it right
there.
The beliefs of a few people and some rules
counties across the country.