Nevada Governor Signals He Will Sign Bill for a Presidential Primary

Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak was interviewed on a television news program on Monday, June 7. When asked about AB 192, the bill to establish a presidential primary, he said, “So that was a good thing, I think for everybody, to get rid of the caucuses and have the primaries.” See this story.

However, he still hasn’t signed the bill, as of the morning of June 8.


Comments

Nevada Governor Signals He Will Sign Bill for a Presidential Primary — 42 Comments

  1. Shows what there real priority is, that he signed the one to make it harder for third parties.

  2. yes, and the bill for a presidential primary passed before the bill to make it harder for new parties.

  3. The trolling at June 8, 2021 at 2:53 pm is from Will Klatt and it should be deleted. He is attempting to disrupt discussion on this site.

  4. @Fact checker…. Maybe yes, maybe no. It’s Richard’s site and therefore his right to freedom of association will determine whether that happens or not.

    I do find it humorous though that someone who repeatedly espouses Nationalistic views is proposing the deplatforming of someone based on their speech and opinions alone; don’t you criticize Facebook and others for doing the exact same?

  5. Yes, you post the most garbage comments out of everyone, including disingenuous arguments and tactics, gas lighting, impersonation, bullying, lies, you name it. You probably post most of the comments you then accuse other people of posting. It’s an open question whether you really believe any of the crap you post.

  6. James Geronimo Klatt will one day read about how his father Will Klatt posted vulgar comments under vulgar names and bullied and harassed people in order to disrupt political discussion.

  7. You posted those comments because you’re bored fascist trash and possibly a Putin plant. The only one doing those things here is you.

  8. “Fact Checker” is obsessed with this Will Klatt guy. Maybe they should get married

  9. Only if Klatt is gay. And single. Otherwise it probably would never work.

  10. One benefit of caucuses and conventions over primaries is that each party can use whatever method of voting its members prefer.

    If you are going to hold primaries, the parties themselves should be entitled to use the method of voting they prefer in their own primaries.

  11. Do both New Hampshire and Nevada have nuclear weapons? Or, should we expect biowarfare and cyber attacks? Maybe no state will be able to hold primaries because two states both have to go first. Is this the pretext for the military takeover Qanon has been predicting?

  12. Some state could initiate an on-line primary that opens the day after the mid-term elections. Registered voters could vote for declared or undeclared candidates, parties could decide which voters to count in their primary, and voters could switch their votes right up to the closing deadline.

  13. It will open up a wormhole of logical contradiction which will swallow up the universe.

  14. NV has Area 51 and UFOs.

    NH has ice/snow esp in Jan 2024.

    Both SMALL pop States should be merged with adjacent SMALL pop States.

  15. Hey retard, Nevada is growing, and would have more people if the feds didn’t own so much of the land. How about if your state Michigan merges with Ohio or Indiana?

  16. Should be merged? What do you mean? States are sovereign. Aren’t you the one that says that?

  17. States can merge if they and congress all agree. It hasn’t happened because that never happens.

  18. No states have ever been merged. To my knowledge, there has not been any movement to do so.

    States have been divided: Maine was divided from Massachusetts, and West Virginia from Virginia.

    IMO, states with the greatest population should be considered for division.

  19. Yeah, that hardly ever happens either. Not since the 1800s. Over a century and a half.

  20. Civil WAR I — due to free/slave States — CONTROL of USA Senate.

    2021 — 435 Reps / 50 = 8.7 Reps Ave.

    NO small State wants to lose its 2 blowhard 666 USA Senators >>> Civil WAR II.

    —-
    PR
    APPV
    TOTSOP

  21. Can you blame them? That’s the whole point of the Senate in the compromise that created the union of States.

  22. Various FATAL Compromises –

    666 USA Senate
    Electoral College
    slavery allowed

    1 down via 13 Amdt — the very hard way – 750,000 DEAD
    2 to go

  23. Slavery is still allowed. There’s a loophole built into the 13th amendment. It’s right there in the text.

  24. Hey retard, the Electoral College is a good thing. It gives the smaller states some power in elections.

  25. Always some MORONS who love minority rule and monarchs/oligarchs

    — esp the very olde divine right of kings.
    —–
    PR
    APPV
    TOTSOP

  26. The Electoral College has a number of virtues that are under appreciated.

    1. It makes the Presidential election quicker than it would be with a popular vote.
    2. It forces a quick resolution in a close election in which no candidate has a 50%+ majority. It’s a kind of instant run-off that is admittedly biased toward smaller states.
    3. It confines election controversies to particular states.
    4. It allows each state to use its own voting method.

    But, that doesn’t mean that it cannot be improved. There are a few things that can help:

    1. Adoption of the Wyoming Rule, which would make both the House of Representatives and the Electoral College more proportional to population.
    2. Adoption of ranked choice voting, particularly in swing states, to lessen the “spoiler” effect of third party and independent candidates.
    3. Adoption of district voting in hotly contested states to confine election controversies to particular districts, and lessen adverse impact on overall outcome.
    4. Dividing the most populous states into smaller states to minimize the distortion of Senatorial electors.

  27. @ Demo Rep

    Both of the articles that you site are simple-minded platitudes that don’t draw a fundamental distinction between a plurality and a majority. The real danger is that in a closely divided electorate, resorting to plurality voting means that either major party can end up winning without a clear majority. The Democrats won in 1992 and 1996 without a majority, and even if you used just the popular vote in 2000 and 2016, the Democrats STILL didn’t have a majority. Without stating particular reforms that could fix things, the reader is left to draw the conclusion that just using plurality voting solves the democratic problem. It does not, and creates and amplifies other problems that the authors choose to overlook.

  28. WZ —

    MEDIA MATH MORONS DO NOT LOOK AT BAN.

    TRY AND EDUCATE THEM ABOUT ***BASIC*** STUFF —

    MAJORITY RULE [DEMOCRACY] VS MINORITY RULE [MONARCHY/OLIGARCHY].

    GOOD LUCK — MEDIA MATH MORONS BARELY UNDERSTAND HORSE / SPORTS STATS — WINNERS / LOSERS.

  29. NPR? Can you get more biased? Might as well post from the DNC’s website. You really are a retard.

  30. A final dig:

    No Clinton that ever ran for President won a majority of the popular vote.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.