Like the many before it, this year’s Presidential election will be held in accordance with the constitutional principles of states’ rights as represented by the Electoral College. Unfortunately, this important practice is no longer something that we should take for granted.
In 2014, the Oklahoma Senate stunned many Oklahomans by approving a proposal to counteract part of the constitutional principle of states’ rights.
When the founding fathers designed our Constitution, they included an important mechanism to ensure that smaller states such as Oklahoma were represented in the Electoral College by giving each state two Electoral College votes, regardless of population.
In recent years, a series of the more populous states have advanced a proposed bypass of the Electoral College. This proposal requires each state to make its Electoral College delegates vote for the Presidential candidate that receives the highest total in the national popular vote. Had this system already been in place, Oklahoma’s Electoral College delegates would have voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 and Gore in 2000, even though Oklahomans voted for the other candidate by a wide margin.
To date, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Washington, Vermont, California and Rhode Island have adopted the proposal after advocacy by what appears to be two partner groups, one of which is part of a George Soros funded operation.
Here’s the problem for these groups: the Washington Post opined that if this effort were to be successful, “they’ll likely have to branch out into red states, because there are only so many blue states (and so many electoral votes in them) on the map.”
How could the national popular vote people convince the more sparsely populated red staters to give away their advantage in the Electoral College?
What better way than to put Oklahoma on the list?
If the reddest state in the nation signs on, then why wouldn’t other red states?
To this end, the national popular vote group invaded Oklahoma with a high powered team of very sophisticated lobbyists. They wisely kept the issue under the radar and away from the eyes of the public while aggressively trying to convince legislators by using a series of convoluted logic for why this proposal would benefit conservatives.
They financed a series of out-of-state junkets to various vacation sites where they explained this logic against an exotic backdrop of recreational events.
Having succeeded in the Senate, they then went on the offensive in the House. They planned to finance an all-expenses-paid junket to St. Croix. In this exotic venue, far away from the eyes of the public, they would have attempted to convince Oklahoma House members to also vote for the bill. Just a few days after they return to the mainland, House members would have voted on the proposal.
Fortunately, the public has activated and the outrage went viral. This issue was no longer under the radar and many of us in the House determined to fiercely defend the Electoral College and the founding fathers’ vision.
Unlike our Senate colleagues, we had the benefit of public attention and outrage to bolster our case.
In 2014, I wrote about the St. Croix trip in my weekly article. Shortly thereafter the trip was canceled and the initiative lost momentum. But, don’t think for a second that the initiative is gone forever and don’t be surprised to learn that since that time Oklahoma lawmakers have continued to join out-of-state junkets to hear about the benefits of getting rid of the electoral college.
However, at least for one more election, the electoral college survives.
Thank you for reading this article. Your interest and input are much appreciated. Please do not hesitate to email [email protected] with your thoughts and suggestions.
Sincerely,
Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.
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 presidential candidates.
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).
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).
Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004.
And, the National Popular Vote bill would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the presidential 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).
After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that “Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College.”
Over the last few decades, presidential election outcomes within the majority of states have become more and more predictable.
From 1992- 2012
13 states (with 102 electoral votes) voted Republican every time
19 states (with 242) voted Democratic every time
If this 20 year pattern continues, and the National Popular Vote bill does not go into effect,
Democrats only would need a mere 28 electoral votes from other states.
If Republicans lose Florida (29), they would lose.
Some states have not been competitive for more than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position.
• 41 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2012
• 32 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2012
• 13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2012
• 19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2012
• 7 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988
• 16 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988
A survey of voters in Oklahoma (with 7 electoral votes) showed 79% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.
Voters were asked “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?”
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 71% among Republicans, 85% among Democrats, and 87% among independents/others.
By gender, support was 86% among women and 72% among men.
By age, support was 85% among 18-29 year olds, 80% among 30-45 year olds, 77% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.
On February 12, 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 28–18 margin.
The bill was approved this year by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia and Missouri.
On February 4, 2016 the Arizona House of Representatives passed the bill 40-16-4.
Two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives sponsored the National Popular Vote bill.
In January 2016, two-thirds of the Arizona Senate sponsored the National Popular Vote bill.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group
Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9).
The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
Based on the current mix of states that have enacted the National Popular Vote compact, it could take about 25 states to reach the 270 electoral votes needed to activate the compact.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com