Oklahoma State Senate Votes To Bind State's Electoral Votes To National Popular Vote

Political Realities ^ | 02/15/14 | LD Jackson

[mvymvy]

Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.

If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.

If states were to ever start adopting the whole-number proportional approach on a piecemeal basis, each additional state adopting the approach would increase the influence of the remaining states and thereby would decrease the incentive of the remaining states to adopt it. Thus, a state-by-state process of adopting the whole-number proportional approach would quickly bring itself to a halt, leaving the states that adopted it with only minimal influence in presidential elections.

The proportional method also could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.

If the whole-number proportional approach, the only proportional option available to an individual state on its own, had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.

A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.

It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach, which would require a constitutional amendment, does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

[mvymvy]

Equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate is explicitly established in the U.S. Constitution. This feature cannot be changed by state law or an interstate compact.

In fact, equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate may not even be amended by an ordinary federal constitutional amendment. Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides:
“No State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

Thus, this feature of the U.S. Constitution may only be changed by a constitutional amendment approved by unanimous consent of all 50 states.

In contrast, the U.S. Constitution explicitly assigns the power of selecting the manner of appointing presidential electors to the states. The enactment by a state legislature of the National Popular Vote bill is an exercise of a legislature’s existing powers under the U.S. Constitution.

In short, enactment of the National Popular Vote compact has no bearing on the federal constitutional provisions establishing equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate.

[The Truth Will Make You Free]

Thanks for posting this. Here's the email I just wrote to my OK State Senator:

Please explain your rationale in voting for Senate Bill 906 Elections: establishing Agreement among the States to Elect the President by Popular Vote.

Why would we in Oklahoma in Oklahoma want our influence diluted by liberal democratic population centers of east coast and west coast major cities?

This is the first time I’ve taken to writing you, and I want to go on record as a member of your district, that you did not represent me in this vote.

At this point I’m looking forward to the next primary so I encourage all I know to vote for a Republican who won’t align themselves with the enemies of the Republic.

[Mears]

“A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.”

---

As a Republican in MA I would love this. I’ve often said to myself on presidential voting days, “Why bother?”.

.

[Repeal The 17th]

You have put a lot of thought into this.
Thank you.

[mvymvy]

The National Popular Vote bill would change current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

When states with a combined total of at least 270 Electoral College votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate. In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).

And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don’t matter to candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.

Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.

When and where voters matter, then so do the issues they care about most.

In the 2012 election, only 9 states and their voters mattered under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. 9 states determined the election. Candidates did not care about 80% of the voters— voters in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and in 16 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX.
2012 campaigning was even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004.
In 2008, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA).
Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
More than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans, have been just spectators to the general election.

Now, policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states - that include 10 of the original 13 states - are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing, too.

Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
“Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states.”

Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.

16% of Americans live in rural areas.

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

[Political Junkie Too]

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.

You wouldn't think this way if you studied the implications of these maps.

Look at the spikes in the Democrat cities. Now ask yourself, how much of those votes were fraudulent (illegal voters)? Now ask yourself what would happen of the fraudulent votes from Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, and New York City were allowed to spill over their borders and count in all the other states?

You begin to see that the Electoral College is a firewall against illegal voting. The Democrat could win by 1 vote or 1 million votes in California, but the candidate will still only get 55 electoral votes. Do away with the Electoral College, and all of those illegal votes will count everywhere.

-PJ

[a fool in paradise]

He’s put a lot of electoral college meme cut and paste into this. Google the sentences.

[campaignPete R-CT]

FedEx Office Print & Ship Center

Hours of Operation
Monday - Thursday 24 hours
Friday 12:01 AM – 11:00 PM
Saturday 9:00 AM – 9:00 PM
Sunday 9:00 AM – 11:59 PM

[a fool in paradise]

Looking at his posting history, he appears to be a post and run single issue FReeper. And those talking points are found all over the web (cut and paste talking points).

I thought this was a discussion forum.

The solid block of text was the giveaway for me.

[GeronL]

This is the stupidest idea ever!

Now Oklahoma will likely see their EV’s go to Democrats even if 75% of the state votes otherwise.

[GeronL]

Imagine a state going 75% for Republicans and their EV’s go to Democrats. That is what will happen.

[GeronL]

It is still a really dumb idea that dumb people will support

[mvymvy]

These supporters of National Popular Vote are all dumb people?

Former Congressmen John Anderson (R–Illinois and later independent presidential candidate), John Buchanan (R–Alabama), Tom Campbell (R–California), and Tom Downey (D–New York), and former Senators Birch Bayh (D–Indiana), David Durenberger (R–Minnesota), and Jake Garn (R–Utah), and former Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)?

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls
in recent or past closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA —75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%;
in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%;
in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and
in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.

In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state’s winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.

Question 1: “How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?”

Question 2: “Do you think it more important that a state’s electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?”

Support for a National Popular Vote

South Dakota — 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2.
see http://tinyurl.com/3jdkx7x

Connecticut — 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2.
see http://tinyurl.com/3nv8djt

Utah — 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2.
see http://tinyurl.com/3vrfxyh

Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

NationalPopularVote

[GeronL]

Yes. It is a ridiculous idea.

[okie01]

Single issue poster, I see.

The last three pages of your posting history are all concerned with the Electoral College and promotion of the National Popular Vote.

You have, it would appear, an agenda. Given that this agenda is also shared by the lawless left, I believe I will ignore you hereafter.

It's unfortunate that the Constitution doesn't meet your needs...

[Political Junkie Too]

And another poll came out today saying that 25% of Americans believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

There are many problems with the National Popular Vote initiative. I have a lot of questions that have gone unanswered.

Interstate compacts require the consent of Congress. What is Congress' present position on this?

What happens if a state chooses to drop out of the compact after it is in force? Does the compact terminate until a replacement state can be found that regains the 270 electoral vote threshold?

States don't have to wait for a compact that reaches 270 electoral votes in order to do this. A state could choose now to bind their votes to the national popular vote regardless of what other states do. Why have no states done this? Why do you need to wait for a compact of states to join?

Do you think that non-compact states would go to the Supreme Court to try to stop this? Consider this: if states amounting to 270 electoral college votes compact together, this has the real effect of negating the electoral college votes of all the other states, rendering them unrepresented in the choosing of the President. Do you expect those states to stay quiet?

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

I remember debating this poster back in 2012 on this very issue.

-PJ

[mvymvy]

Congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings. However, because there would undoubtedly be time-consuming litigation about this aspect of the compact, National Popular Vote is working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent.

The U.S. Constitution provides:

“No state shall, without the consent of Congress,… enter into any agreement or compact with another state….”

Although this language may seem straight forward, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in 1893 and again in 1978, that the Compacts Clause can “not be read literally.” In deciding the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the Court wrote:

“Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States.

“The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta.”

Specifically, the Court’s 1893 ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee stated:

“Looking at the clause in which the terms ‘compact’ or ‘agreement’ appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.”

The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution:

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”

In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote:

“The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States”

The National Popular Vote compact would not “encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States” because there is simply no federal power — much less federal supremacy — in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.

In the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the compact at issue specified that it would come into force when seven or more states enacted it. The compact was silent as to the role of Congress. The compact was submitted to Congress for its consent. After encountering fierce political opposition from various business interests concerned about the more stringent tax audits anticipated under the compact, the compacting states proceeded with the implementation of the compact without congressional consent. U.S. Steel challenged the states’ action. In upholding the constitutionality of the implementation of the compact by the states without congressional consent, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the interpretation of the Compacts Clause from its 1893 holding in Virginia v. Tennessee, writing that:

“the test is whether the Compact enhances state power quaod [with regard to] the National Government.”

The Court also noted that the compact did not

“authorize the member states to exercise any powers they could not exercise in its absence.”

[mvymvy]

If a state chooses to drop out of the compact after it is in force and the remaining states do not have a total of the minimum 270 electoral votes needed, the compact would not be in effect until a state(s) regains the 270 electoral vote threshold.

Because the compact would become effective only when it encompasses states collectively possessing a majority of the electoral votes, the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia would be guaranteed enough electoral votes in the Electoral College to be elected to the Presidency.

No single state would ever be likely to unilaterally enact a law awarding its electoral votes to the nationwide winner. For one thing, such an action would give the voters of all the other states a voice in the selection of the state’s own presidential electors, while not giving the enacting state the benefit of a voice in the selection of presidential electors in other states. Moreover, enactment of such a law in a single state would encourage the presidential candidates to ignore the enacting state. Such unilateral action would not guarantee achievement of the goal of nationwide popular election of the President.