Nevada is also now one of the 15 states that are part of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. So we are inching closer to one person = one vote, regardless of state lines.
Wouldn't that be nice? These states are getting a lot of push back from the opposition, namely the GOP. When either side opposes movements that give more power back to the popular vote, it only indicates to me how scared politicians are to actually let the American people decide for themselves.
Between 2008 and 2017 over 450,000 Californians moved to Nevada, which made California the largest source of new residents to the swing state. One main cause is high rising housing prices, namely in the Bay Area and Southern California that has Cali transplants opting for cheaper prices in Reno and Las Vegas. So what kind of impact does this have on Nevada politics, especially pertaining to the coming presidential election?
While not all of the former Californians are left-leaning or even vote for that matter, their exodus has certainly accelerated a move to left in the state. According to political strategists and observers, it has helped Democrats take control of state government for the first time in a generation, greasing the wheels for a number of progressive policies.
"Already, the results have been palpable. In recent months, lawmakers raised the minimum wage, put in place higher green energy standards, guaranteed collective bargaining rights for state employees and enacted new gun control measures (some of which don’t go into effect until next year) — making the state a little more like its neighbor to the west."
According to data from Nevada's Secretary of State, statewide party voter registration switched from a Republican advantage of 1,000 voters in 2004 to a Democratic Advantage of more than 70,000 in 2019. Yet, the fastest growing group is voters registered without party preference. This could mean a lot for a state that has voted Republican for the past six presidential elections.
"Democrats swept all of the most crucial races in last year’s midterm elections, winning the governor’s office, both houses of the legislature, and their second U.S. Senate seat. They’re in control of all the levers of state government for the first time since 1992."
The influx could be a big advantage for Democratic candidates in the 2020 Presidential Election, especially for California Senator Kamala Harris - who has put a lot of special focus on Nevada. Her campaign alone has visited Nevada 8 times, which is more than any other top contender in the race. It's definitely something to think about.
Either way, the changing of Nevada's demographics will certainly ripple-out into 2020's key Democratic caucuses which is the third contest of the presidential primary campaign.
I would definitely like to hear other opinions on this. I also wonder if there are any other states experiencing such a high amount of migration from other states. My money would be on Texas ... and California migrants, yet again.
Heated debate as gone on over state laws which some consider to be ways to combat voting fraud, and others believe hamper the youth vote. This of course isn't new to voting in the United States. Limitations of student IDs, the restriction of polling locations on or near college campuses, and the classic gerrymandering have been called into question. What are considered to be the main battle ground states over these issues are Wisconsin, Florida and New Hampshire.
Two years after the 2016 Presidential election, New Hampshire Republicans moved to pass a law requiring voters to comply with residency requirements such as getting a New Hampshire driver's license and vehicle registration. Voting rights advocates argue that such a law would weaken the electoral might of young voters, which is an increasingly left-leaning voting bloc.
Yet proponents of the law argue that it was intended to combat fraud in the state. At the time NH was the only state that didn't require voters to be legal residents.
“We have a group of people who say, ‘This is where I live, but don’t have to register my car here. I don’t have to get my license like everyone else in this room has to do,’ ” said Sharon Carson, a Republican senator from Londonderry, N.H., during debate on the measure. “And yet we allow them to vote here.”
Opponents such as the ACLU claimed that such requirements were essentially a poll tax:
"Residents who move to New Hampshire are required to switch over their driver’s licenses and vehicle registrations within 60 days. The penalty for not doing so can reach $1,000. The cost of a new license is $50 and vehicle registration can cost hundreds of dollars, depending on the car, according to the state Department of Motor Vehicles."
One of the reasons why New Hampshire is considered to be such a pivotal battleground over the youth vote is because of higher voting turnout rates for ages 18 to 29, and how that affects narrow electoral margins.
The 2018 midterm elections saw a turn out rate for college-age students which was a little more than half that of voters overall. Such an upswing added two percentage points to the popular vote for Dems during the midterms. Ten Democratic seats were won by less than two points.
"In 2016, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton won the state by fewer than 3,000 votes, or three-tenths of a percentage point. Democrat Maggie Hassan unseated Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R) with a victory margin of just 1,017 votes."
It was argued by state Republicans that college students from out of state had swayed the outcome.
The new law hasn't been implemented yet due to lawsuits made by the opposition. Yet, if a repeal of the law is implemented, New Hampshire's governor has said he would veto it.
Since the data cannot be ignored regarding the increasing electoral power of the youth vote, and how that affected elections in the past for New Hampshire, how could this impact such a swing state? Are there similar examples from other states we could look at to draw some conclusions?
Agreed. I think it's a combination of a lot of things. Money is moved around a lot, and they don't want to cough up the millions of bucks to fix something they only use every so often. I also don't think it helped that the politician overseeing the project resigned for personal reasons.
I don't know much about cyber security, but I do know something about public confidence in their government, as well the security of their voting systems. Iowa Secretary of State's office announced that they will be sticking with the 14 year old voter registration system for the time being. They said the new system would be off of the ground until after the next election.
It looks like the old system will see yet another presidential election. The system was almost infiltrated by Russian hackers in the 2016 presidential election. Which was more than enough to raise eyebrows.
It concerns me a great deal that out of all states, a swing state is sticking with what still could be a vulnerable voting system. This isn't the first time a swing state ran into controversy about their voting system. Anyone remember the "hanging chads" controversy in Florida?
Most of all, I think it's asking for trouble. Since the 2016 election, there has been nothing but venom spat across the aisle about the legitimacy of the last election's results. I think this will only allow this same trouble to carry over into the 2020 election. Anyone else agree? Or would pushing a new system into action lead to unknown vulnerabilities in the next election?
I didn't know there COULD be such a thing, especially 15 states doing it. I'd expect the number to be less with very stiff opposition. I'm not sure. But I know the law was passed last November in Colorado. I find it interested to see D.C. cooperating with this movement as well.
I think Biden's stiffest competition will be Harris, and Gabbard being the wild card. I also think this will be Yang's last hurrah unless he does anything but a stellar job of it.
A ballot measure was put forth to undo Colorado's National Popular Vote compact law. If you're not familiar with it. It was a law passed last session in Colorado's legislature which gives the states electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote.
Folks will of course argue that it takes the electoral power away from Colorado citizens. One article said:
"The National Popular Vote would take away the individuality of states and lead us to sort of a mob rule, other-states-governing-smaller-states type election."
So far 15 states, including Washington D.C. have passed the same laws agreeing to pool their votes for the national popular vote winner, regardless if the candidate won the state.
What does everyone else think? I like it. I say that any law that takes away the power from the Electoral College should be passed.
I would say Harris' ideas are more of the same and Warren's would create more change. But I am weary of creating more tax revenue when perhaps the biggest issue with this country is how we allocate and spend it once it's collected.
I can't agree more. I think it's more about about how we allocate tax revenue, which brings me to my main point. I have a feeling that if either plan were implemented, the government and the military industrial complex would just find other ways to keep or increase their budget. The amount of money that we spend on warfare is ridiculous, and it's been proven since WWII that the government has been doing everything they can to keep that money flowing into the respective coffers.
It's the age old argument against Democrats. It's definitely polarizing. For the most part, progressive tax plans such as these create the opposition. Which is why many of us draw conclusions such as: Wealthy = Republican, and working class = Democrat. I find Harris's plan to be the best, and less invasive. I myself would rather just get a tax break. Yet, I wonder. How would taxing the wealthy more affect the middle class? If anything, I only see it benefiting the lower class through government programs. So I find Harris's plan to be more encompassing.
I wanted to get a discussion going. It's all ramping up for the 2020 Democratic candidates, and two particular out of the 20 seem to be talked about the most in the media. Former Vice President Joe Biden is a solid favorite for the classic Democrats, and Vermont Senator, Bernie Sanders is more popular with the progressive/liberal Democrats. They may be on the same side, but they are far from being cut from the same cloth. They want the same thing for the most part. They want to change the country from what it is today, and they both want Trump out of the White House. So what is the key difference?
Biden has been in the White House before. His style is very much what I'd call a status quo type of policy. Kind of like the Clinton days. Keep the country as happy as possible with incremental changes along the way. Some Democrats have argued that while he was vice president, changes were too incremental. Biden said:
"I helped make this government work before. And I can make it work again. To me, our principles must never be compromised. But compromise itself is not a dirty word. Consensus is not a weakness — it's a necessity. It's how this government was designed to work."
Essentially, Biden wants to hit rewind to the years before Trump became president. I'd say the jury is out on if that can ever be accomplished.
Sanders', however, is a radical shift from that of Biden. He doesn't want to bring the country back to "normalcy". He said in an interview with Meet The Press that while beating President Trump was "Number 1", it was "not enough." Another thing he said which I think encapsulates my point is:
"I understand that our campaign is unique in the sense that we're going to try to win the Democratic primary, that we are going to try to beat Trump, but you know what else we're going to try to do? We're going to try to transform the United States of America. ... So our campaign has a different goal. It's to transform this country, and we're taking on the entire establishment when we do that."
It's easy to see why more progressives favor him over Biden. If they were poker players, Biden would be a close-to-the-chest sort of player, and Bernie would be the aggressive bettor.
What other key differences are there do you think? Probably too many to list in one post, but could there be something more obvious that I missed?