Thursday, June 27, 2019 | 2 a.m.
View more of the Sun's opinion section
Professor Sondra Cosgrove’s June 9 guest column, “Consider context in popular vote debate,” was very informative concerning the history of the presidential election.
I differ, though, with many of her assumptions and conclusions.
First, I strongly believe the candidates do not visit to inform. They visit to raise money and to have a higher profile. It’s all about them, not us. The press and the internet give enough information to the voters, and the term “campaign promise” has become an oxymoron.
Second, had the popular vote amendment been in place in 2016, California would have overridden the other 49 states and districts in deciding the presidential vote. If the coastal states could decide the election and local votes were ignored, might people well have less incentive to vote at all? Presidential voter percentage is much higher than municipal election tallies, and I suspect that municipal election participation would suffer as voters in small states felt ignored in the presidential vote.
Third, changing state law because of current displeasure with a recent past outcome that was both legal and constitutional appears petty and immature.
I commend Gov. Steve Sisolak’s courage in vetoing Assembly Bill 186.
