EDITORIAL: Nevada would lose in Electoral College opt-out

If Democrats get their way, what happens here during presidential elections won’t matter to anyone.

Nevada has established itself as one of the most important states in presidential politics. It’s an early state on the presidential nominating calendar. During the general election, Nevada regularly receives high-profile visits from both presidential campaigns. In contrast, California receives comparably little attention in presidential politics.

That’s because of the Electoral College. Presidential candidates don’t win by receiving the most total votes. Each state and Washington, D.C., conducts its own separate contest. The winner in each location receives electoral votes, which for states is the number of Congressional representatives. Nevada has six electoral votes, four House seats plus two Senators. A couple of states award electors by congressional district. There are 538 electoral votes, which means a candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win.

Nevada is one of the country’s few swing states. That means both campaigns compete aggressively here. In contrast, California has 54 electoral votes. But because it’s all but certain to vote Democratic, it’s largely ignored.

All that would change under Assembly Joint Resolution 6. Sponsored by a host of legislative Democrats, it’s a constitutional amendment to join Nevada to the National Popular Vote Compact. In this agreement, states would award their electors to the candidate winning the most votes nationally — even if another candidate won their state. So, Nevada could vote for Candidate A, but demand its electors vote for Candidate B.

The compact would only go into effect once states with 270 electoral votes combine agree to join. Currently, 15 states and Washington, D.C., have agreed to it.

As a constitutional amendment, Nevada’s proposal would need to pass both houses this session and in 2025. The Assembly voted to approve it last month. Then it would need voter approval in 2026.

There is a host of problems, both logistical and in principle, with this compact. Coming up with a vote total is harder than it sounds. The founders purposefully didn’t set up a direct democracy, which this seeks. It’s unclear if the U.S. Supreme Court would find consider this scheme constitutional or not.

But Nevada has a more practical concern. If raw vote totals determined presidential election results, the Silver State would be upstaged by the Golden State. Its population is more than 12 times larger.

California doesn’t have the interests of Nevada in mind. Just look at water policy. That’s one obvious reason Nevada politicians shouldn’t outsource our election results to the whims of Californians.