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?”
The end of the Electoral College means that the Dems will be the permanent majority party. The Electoral College is the result of Federalism and states' rights. The Dems will pile up huge majorities in the urban areas and in big states. The GOP will never win the WH again.
So you would like the US President to be elected solely on the whims of the densely populated cities? By the same populations that have the highest percentage of government dependency, the lowest percentages of workers, the least effective education, the lowest levels of civilized behavior, the highest crime rates, and obscene levels of vote fraud?
You must really like this current administration, because that's what would result, with little chance of changing the outcome.
To our eternal shame (and regret, for those of us out here in red red PALabama)
Only in the case of Rhode Island, Hawaii and Puerto Rico (in the future) do Democrats subscribe to the requirement.
Had they their way, they’d have DC represented by voting Senators.
A good article about this effort can be found herehttp://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2012/11/electoral-college-imperfect-but-preserves-federalism-best
I am sure that this bill is DOA in the House. Also Senators who voted for it are receiving a lot of flak here. My Senator is the author of the bill, but is not running for reelection so he deserted his voters. He plans on becoming a lobbyist, so I wonder that he did this to help his new career.
I’m appalled. My guy, a Republican, voted for it.
consider the power of Article V in that each state has 1 vote, regardless of population
We will become like the empires of yore, mega cities which dominated vast swathes of surrounding countryside for their own aggrandizement - kind of like Chicago controls IL.
Absolutely correct. Doing away with the Electoral College or tying electoral votes to the national totals is the sure path to One Party Rule, the Democrat Party dream of the near final victory.
The final victory will be when 1) they mandate that everyone of voting age MUST vote or be subject to some IRS levy and 2) job candidates will be rejected when applying for jobs unless they prove they are loyal Democrat Party members.
Its coming.............its only a matter of time.
“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.”
It’s great to see here on FR when a liberal raises it head from under a rock, people who want to do away with the Electoral College are either leftists, of do not understand how and why it was set up in the first place.
A wise Freeper one posted a numeric breakdown of if the EC was gone, which and how may big cities it would take for the Dems to take and hold complete control of our nation. It was about as many as you listed without the ad nauseum. Was scary.
Direct election of the POTUS remembering the 2000 election could make the election uncertain. Imagine the endless recalls we saw in Florida being repeated in all 50 states in a close election.
It is best to institute tyranny with as little fanfare and public discourse as possible. Thank him for us.
But do it kindly and in an educational manner.
Here are the vote results.
“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).”
This is close to the `Congressional District’ method of awarding Electorial votes. A county by county method might not be too bad either. I think the EC may need some tweeking, but not it’s removal.
You’re absolutely right. Let’s say 70% of Oklahoma votes against a presidential candidate, but that candidate wins the national popular vote by a tiny margin. Let’s say that candidate is also hard left, directly opposed to Oklahoma on virtually every issue, and his or her margin of victory comes from a couple big cities, like Chicago or New York. Finally, let’s say the election hinges on Oklahoma’s electoral votes. This COULD happen.
Given the above scenario, what kind of fool would vote to give away Oklahoma’s power to decide the election in a way that would serve Oklahoma’s interests????
Without the Electoral College, the Presidency would be determined by our large urban areas- which are only fit for nuclear weapons testing sites. No thanks.
The Electoral vote MUST stand.
I do thing, however, that the states should take it upon themselves to split the votes based on vote totals in the state. For instance, WI has 10 electoral votes, if the vote in WI goes 60/40 then 4 electoral votes should go to the lesser voted for candidate so as not to silence those voters.
Another interesting thought would be to give state electoral votes based on voter turn-out. WI has 10 votes, if only 40% of the people turn out to vote, we only get 4 that year.
Just some thoughts, don’t crucify me. :)
You’re absolutely right. The Democrats could focus entirely on major metropolitan areas, like Chicago and New York, and ignore states like Oklahoma (and even Texas beyond Dallas). This would also make it much easier for them to win elections by voting fraud.
EXACTLY! This is the dumbest idea I have EVER heard.
If they want to award the votes to the winner of the popular vote IN OKLAHOMA, then.. ok. But, never to the National winner. That's insane.
Oklahoma and you made a huge mistake.
Considering it came from deep-red OK, this a stunner. What in the hell are these OK senators imagining is the greater interest to be served by blowing off the will of the people to be accurately represented in the EC?
The EC is in place to stand as a bulwark against the very thing we’re seeing in the country now... inordinate power shifting to thickly populated metro areas.
This country is completely unhinged.
The Electoral College should be scrapped because the population shift to the large, liberal, urban areas is leading the college to the same point that just electing the President by popular vote would have. Right now if the right combination of just 11 or 12 states came together in the college they would determine the election result. If we can not keep Texas red, and occasionally win Ohio, conservatives will never elect another president.
The answer is to push through a Constitutional Amendment which gives the each state one vote in determining the president. The vote would be cast every four years by the governors of each state. The governors would have the authority to yearly review the president’s performance and remove that president with a vote of 34 minimum votes in favor. No person would be allowed to serve more than 12 years as president. A simple majority would be all that is necessary for the governors to hire the president. Candidates would apply for the position, and campaigning would be prohibited. This is more like a decision to hire or fire someone than the electing of a politician.
Currently there are 30 Republican governors. Think about it.
“Oklahoma and you made a huge mistake. “
Fortunately the bill also has to pass the House and be signed by the Governer to become law. The word I am getting from insiders is that it is DOA in the House.
“We will become like the empires of yore, mega cities which dominated vast swathes of surrounding countryside for their own aggrandizement - kind of like Chicago controls IL.”
That is exactly right. Outside of St. Louis and Chicago, Illinois is fairly conservative. Illinois Republicans are effectively disenfranchised. They have virtually no power or say in their own government even though they are a very large minority with over 40% (Romney = 41.1%) of the vote.
Chicago, a well known center of fraud and corruption, rules Illinois, and there’s not a darn thing the other 40%+ can do about it. THIS is what Oklahoma senators want on a national level??? It’s insane.
I’m sorry, but you’re dreaming. Just push through a constitutional amendment, eh? LOL!
How the hell do you determine the true “national popular vote”?
Al Gore Junior got 0.51% of the so-called popular vote. That does not include the 3,000 military ballots that the Florida Supremes approved (yet were not in Katherine Harris’ certified total as she held to her original figure).
There are states that never tabulate all of the absentee ballots because they “won’t make a difference” in determining which candidate would win the office in that state.
But if you are going to hold it to NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, you are holding it to a different standard that makes every one of those absentee ballots (and every stolen vote in other precincts) count so much more than they did in the past.
Get ready for never knowing the results of an election until 2 weeks after election day and countless challenges for recounts (as Rats can ballot stuff inner city votes in Philly and Chicago to sway the Kansas electoral college vote).
I’d prefer that my Congressman was required to cast an EC vote for the winner of the popular vote in his district. Senatorial votes should go to the popular vote candidate also.