This San Francisco Chronicle article does not tell the full story of today's hearing in Nevada's Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee.  

Koza/NPV supporters were completely outnumbered. Only two people testified in favor of the Koza scheme during the hearing. Five people testified against the scheme—more would have testified in opposition to AB 413, but the committee ran out of time.

Three important points that were discussed during the hearing, but omitted from the San Francisco Chronicle story:

  • If approved, the NPV compact would require a state such as Nevada to award its entire slate of electors to the candidate winning the largest plurality. Nevada would have to do this even if the plurality obtained by the winning candidate was very small (15%), even if that candidate’s support was purely regional, and even if that candidate did not or could not qualify for the ballot in Nevada.
  • States have different criteria for what does or does not trigger recounts within their borders. They have different ideas of how to count a hanging chad. Inevitably, the lack of a single national standard during a recount would cause chaos, litigation, and confusion. The 2000 litigation would pale in comparison.
  • Testimony was heard about the benefits that the Electoral College provides to a country as diverse as our own: It upholds the two-party system and grants stability to our political system. It ensures that presidential candidates don’t focus too exclusively on one region or special interest, ignoring those in other areas. Yet the San Francisco Chronicle did not see fit to recount one word of these arguments.