Federal judges and the Electoral College

I read with interest the Monday article relating the Democratic outcry to the appointment of Eric Miller to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals over the objections of Washington’s U.S. senators. Our esteemed Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto was quoted as saying this process was put in place to “ensure every senator has a voice in the selection of judges in their home state.”

But the outrage at the overriding of their voice is laughable considering that, the day before, an article appeared in the Review-Journal describing the push by Democrats in Carson City to let the national popular vote determine the winner of the presidency.

If Nevada joins this interstate compact, the voice of this state’s people would be lost in the cacophony of New York and California. Anyone who thinks this is a good idea fails to understand the reason for the Electoral College. The Electoral College exists to reflect the votes of the people of the state those electors represent, not to reflect the national interest.

It is almost terrifying to realize the depth of unschooled, illogical thought that permeates our Legislature. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy here? It’s OK to guarantee the “voice” of a senator but to ignore the voice of a state’s voter.