Skip to comments.Oklahoma State Senate Votes To Bind State's Electoral Votes To National Popular Vote
Posted on 02/15/2014 6:14:40 AM PST by LD Jackson
Here in Oklahoma, we like to call ourselves the reddest of red states. But even here, the insanity is encroaching and hard to keep at bay. That is why it is ever so important to keep a watchful eye over those who represent us, both on the national and state level.
The President and Vice President of the United States are elected by a process known as the Electoral College. I'm not going to bore you with a long and complicated explanation of why that is the case, so here is my simple and condensed version. The United States is made up of 50 states (I told you this was simple) that are populated. The Electoral College is formed by electors that are chosen by the individual states, to equal the number of the member of Congress, plus three additional electors for the District of Columbia. The states are free to choose and allocate those electors as they see fit. This gives both the people of the states, and the states themselves, sway over who is elected President and Vice President. This prevents the smaller, or less populated, states from being overwhelmed by states that have many more residents and losing their national influence.
As a side note, this was also why the states were supposed to elect the members of the United States Senate, instead of the people. We have since changed that, via the 17th Amendment. The debate over how smart that move was is for another time and place.
The Electoral College has served us well since its creation. Only three times has it failed to produce the same results as the national popular vote, with the latest being in 2000 and the Bush/Gore fight over the White House. Because of that, there has been a growing voice for doing away with the Electoral College completely, or simply tying its results to the results of the national popular vote. And yes, that voice has found movement even here in Oklahoma. So it was on Wednesday, February 12, 2014, that the Oklahoma State Senate voted 28-18 in favor of Senate Bill 906, binding Oklahoma's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than the winner of the vote in our state. Details of the election, as well as more commentary, can be found at Muskogee Politico. The measure still has to pass through the Oklahoma House of Representatives and go to Governor Mary Fallin for her signature.
I am trying to contact my State Representative, John Bennett, to see how he stands on this issue. I am hopeful he will be against it and will help defeat it in the House. If it clears that hurdle, I am hopeful the Governor will see fit to veto it into the trash bin, where it belongs. Oklahoma does not need to tie its electoral votes to the national popular vote. If enough states do this, it would effectively do away with the system of national elections designed by the Founding Fathers and implemented by the Electoral College. This would lessen our influence over national affairs and delegate us to being subject to the whim and fancy of the more populated states. I would ask our State Representatives, State Senators, and Governor Mary Fallin, is this what they want, disguised as what some people are calling reform?
One other thing about our system of government. I have seen statements saying it is time to abolish the Electoral College because it is an outdated system that violates democratic principles. Even some websites that explain the Electoral College and the reasoning behind its creation call our country the "oldest continuously functioning democracy" in the world. A word of note to anyone who makes either of those statements. The United States of America is not a democracy, with good reason. The last thing the Founding Fathers wanted was mob rule in America. That is why they created a representative republic for our system of government. Again, not a democracy. There is a big difference between the two and I believe the Electoral College is part of that difference. Are we going to throw it away, all in the name of democracy? Something our founders never intended to happen? I don't think that's a good idea and I am hopeful enough of our leaders feel the same to stop this movement in its tracks in Oklahoma.
Good. We should get rid of the Electoral College anyway. An utter and complete anachronism. And getting rid of it is about the ONLY chance we will have of ever winning the WH again.
The presidential election should not be a popularity contest.
I disagree. Doing away with the Electoral College would be a mistake and would help further the tearing down of the system designed by our Founding Fathers.
Isn’t this unconstitutional? The electoral college is Hamilton’s legacy in the Constitution. Better than what these uninformed OK senators have done is to based it on congressional district votes, as PA could haved done a few years ago but then backed down. And each state can go to the congressional district model on its own, no congressional oversight needed.
Yes, I agree. I trust my future and the future of my country to the denizens of New York, Chicago, Philly, Boston, Lost Angeles, San Francisco, ad nauseum. I am sure that they will make the right decicions for the republic..
Here’s a question. If regional interests, goals and desires aren’t important and worth keeping on a level playing field with other hugely populated, concentrated (geographically) areas, then why succumb to the interest of a National Popular vote?
Why have two Senators from each state? Just base it on population. And so on. Just let each little state and sparsely populated area get beat up by the big dog. I mean, what does it matter?
The fact is, the Democrats want everything to be ‘popular’ vote where LA, NYC, Chicago and all those other cities of massive infestation can lord over every good and decent area with just as much claim on this country as they have.
Allowing this serves only to make the job of Democrat cheating confined to just a few locales.
There is a reason the founders set up a two per state Senatorship, there is a reason the Electoral College forces country wide prominence. Changing this just resigns us all to the despotic whims of Democrats forever.
This gives the mega metropolitan area political machines the ability to deliver the candidate the national machine wants.
Aristotle said that slavery can exist best in a democracy.
Oklahoma, what are you doing!? That just hands your Electoral College delegation to the huge ‘Rat cities like NY, Chicago, LA, Philadelphia, etc. What happened to representing Oklahoma?
You could not be more wrong.
The Electoral College MUST STAND and only a crazy Liberal would disagree.
Until I saw this I would have said no way.
Checking local media, I'm not seeing any report of this.
Not saying it ain't so, but "it seems highly improbable to me." Plus no reporting of it local media - I even gave the Tulsa World a hit to go see if they were reporting this.
Please post a link. Otherwise... "Color me skeptical."
Getting rid of the Electoral College is a very bad move. The only reason national candidates pay ANY attention to the smaller states is because of the EC.
Once removed - the most populous states will determine every election from then on. And, generally, the most populated states are blue.
Plus, the smaller states will have NO voice whatsoever on the national stage.
In fact, I think there should be within the states, a similar system with each county having only a certain number of votes. In Nevada, two cities determine every election outcome - Las Vegas and Reno, And often, Las Vegas alone determines how the state goes in elections (Las Vegas is a solid democrat city).
Removing the EC will put the major cities completely in control of national elections.
The fact that the writer explains that this is complicated, indicates a dearth of problems with basic US history and social sciences. The EC should be understood by everyone with a fifth grade education.
This has been a leftist behind the scenes agenda for some time. Since states control their electors, there is some solid reasoning that says this is a good end run around the constitutional process of electing presidents.
It stinks. If you have the tyranny of the 50%+1 it is almost as good as the tyranny of an individual — in fact it is better.
All bow to the god Demos
“...Why have two Senators from each state? ...”
Since the passage of the 17th amendment, one could even ask,
“Why have senators? Why have states?”