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.
The battleground states are where the votes have changed from cycle to cycle because of demographic changes.
I ask you again, why do you insist that each election must be a sports event where the score starts at 0-0? What is wrong with states having made their minds up? If the people of those states don't change, and if they pass their family values down to their children, then why do you see this as a problem that must be corrected by forcing those states to be competitive when they don't want to be?
They already know what candidate they want, and the candidate already knows what the state wants.
Now, if you want to take your scheme to the primary races where the later voting states have truly less influence in choosing their party's candidates, I'm open to suggestions.
-PJ
Each district’s vote count is the fairest way to decide an election. It mattes not, whether a third, fourth, or fifth party has the most votes. That is the will of the district/people.
I disagree that it compounds the problems of the EC. Each district would be speaking loudly and clearly and I believe, more people would vote if they thought their vote actually counted. That is the true will of the people.
Popular vote will never be fair. Miami, Orlando, and Tampa/St. Petersburg should not be able to decide who gets Florida’s electoral votes. I’ll never go along with that!
My Congressman should be able to cast a vote FOR HIS DISTRICT.
Popular vote will be the death knell for conservative voters. Too much voter fraud goes on for that to ever be considered, Besides, liberals favor popular vote......they know they benefit the most.
“Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states.”
You keep claiming this as though it’s fact, when any farmer, if forced to choose, would harvest where the crop is most dense. Voter wise, that is in the big cities.
So Joaklahoma no longer wishes to be a factor in any presidential election?
Bizzare!
Why should they bother to vote at all then?
Have your brain re-attached soon.
With the current state winner-take-all method in Florida, the winner of Florida’s vote gets Florida’s electoral votes.
With National Popular Vote, the candidate with the most votes in the Country, decides who wins the presidency.
Under National Popular Vote, every voter, 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 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 votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.
About 88% of districts are non-competitive and would be ignored with a district winner system. Many are heavily gerrymandered.
In NC, for example, there are only 4 of the 13 congressional districts that would be close enough to get any attention from presidential candidates. A smaller fraction of the country’s population lives in competitive congressional districts (about 12%) than in the current battleground states (about 20%) that now get overwhelming attention, while 80% of the states are ignored
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts.
“In 2012, for instance, when Obama garnered nearly a half million more votes in Michigan than Romney, the Republican nominee still managed to carry nine of the state’s 14 congressional districts. If the by-district scheme had been in place for that election, Romney would have collected nine of Michigan’s 16 electoral votes — not enough to change the national result, but enough to make Michigan a net win for Romney, notwithstanding his decisive drubbing in the statewide election.” – Brian Dickerson, Detroit Free Press, Jan. 12, 2014
Congressmen are not electors.
Electors are apportioned to each state and the District of Columbia. The number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the state is entitled, while the Twenty-third Amendment grants the District of Columbia the same number of electors as the least populous state, currently three. In total, there are 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 members of the House of Representatives, 100 senators, and the three additional electors from the District of Columbia. - Wikipedia
A second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
Maine and Nebraska use the congressional district winner method.
Maine and Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.
A survey of Maine voters showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Maine’s electoral votes,
* 71% favored a national popular vote;
* 21% favored Maine’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 8% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Maine’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
***
A survey of Nebraska voters showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska’s electoral votes,
* 60% favored a national popular vote;
* 28% favored Nebraska’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 13% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
Most Americans don’t ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
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.
Voters in non-battleground states do not want to be ignored and politically irrelevant in presidential elections.
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).
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).
Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
80% of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That’s more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.
During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.
The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.
Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to the handful of ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
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 [in the then] 18 battleground states.” [only 10 in 2012]
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.”
The winner-take-all rule adversely affects governance. Sitting Presidents (whether contemplating their own re-election or the election of their preferred successor) pay inordinate attention to the interests of “battleground” states.
# “Battleground” states receive over 7% more grants than other states.
# “Battleground” states receive 5% more grant dollars.
# A “battleground” state can expect to receive twice as many presidential disaster declarations as an uncompetitive state.
# The locations of Superfund enforcement actions also reflect a state’s battleground status.
# Federal exemptions from the No Child Left Behind law have been characterized as “‘no swing state left behind.”
The effect of the current winner-take-all system on governance is discussed at length in Presidential Pork by Dr. John Hudak of the Brookings Institution.
A nationwide presidential campaign, with every voter equal, and every vote counting for the candidate for whom it was cast, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren’t so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Oklahoma, or for a Republican to try it in Oklahoma or Vermont.
The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.
Oklahoma, and 80% of states, are not factors in presidential elections under the current system.
A vote in Oklahoma or any of the non-competitive states is irrelevant in presidential elections.
In 2008, voter turnout in the then 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states.
In 2012, voter turnout was 11% higher in the 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country.
If presidential campaigns now did not ignore more than 200,000,000 of 300,000,000 Americans, one would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 80% of the country that is currently ignored by presidential campaigns.
What kind of a crap school did you go to?
I was taught in grammer school that democracy was the worst form of government ever devised!
this is a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy!!!
The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.
I’m sorry, but you lost me at the President Gore post...
You are wasting your time. Popular vote is fine for class president, not for US president....never....this is not a democracy. THANK GOODNESS.
Voters in states where they are the minority opinion feel that their vote is wasted. If they can't make it count within their state, they want to force it to count on a national level. People in the minority in a state want to take away the state's choice, because they don't like being on the losing side.
You refuse to accept that choosing the president is a state-by-state power in the Constitution. You want the people-at-large to override the states because conservatives in blue states and liberals in red states feel that their votes don't count.
They do count, but there just aren't enough of them in the state to be the prevailing state opinion. You really do want to do away with the whole notion of states entirely, because you feel that it's not fair that someone can't convince others in their local community to vote like they do.
Good luck with that.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.