My own senator, Mike Mazzei (R-District 25), joined with 15 other Republicans and all 12 Democrats to pass S.B. 906.
Several senators who voted in favor of this measure have since reviewed the implications of the legislation and publicly recanted, urging the Oklahoma House to take up the measure and defeat it. Wondering if Sen. Mazzei would follow suit, many of my fellow District 25 constituents reached out to him for an explanation of his vote; one of them kindly shared with me Sen. Mazzei’s response, which could best be summarized in hashtag form:
#sorrynotsorry
Sen. Mazzei’s explanation (which you can read in its entirety below) is more a catalog of excuses than a serious case for support of S.B. 906. More troubling, his explanation is built on factual errors and a very poor understanding of both Constitutional history and our electoral system.
I’m planning a full deconstruction of Sen. Mazzei’s rationale for S.B. 906 — not because I have one iota of influence in political matters, but merely because it is instructive to examine how conservative voters are being fooled by buzzword merchants who mouth all the right talking points even as they lack the most basic understanding of Federalism. All conservatives need to be fluent in history, if for no other reason than being able to catch out these kind of charlatans when they run for office.
And I’m working on it. Slowly. So in lieu of the main course, I offer an amuse-bouche.
Sen. Mazzei’s primary case for S.B. 906 appears to be that its passage will offer Oklahoma a greater prominence in national elections:
Currently over 66% of the money and time for presidential campaign is spent in battleground states like Ohio and Florida. Oklahoma never enjoys presidential candidate visits and receives minimal media attention… Oklahoma voters don’t have much of a say in the presidential election process and our conservative values and policy preferences are fairly ignored. Rather, the issues and policy preferences in battleground states receive undue attention and preference.
Which I find a little too… Alex Forrest of us.
Ohio, you might watch to check on your pet rabbit…
The idea that Oklahoma is somehow the red-headed stepchild — or frizzy-haired, psychotic former lover as played by Glenn Close — of national politics may be satisfying in its kitchen-cabinet populism, but it is not supported by empirical fact.
Quite the contrary.
In both of the last two presidential elections, Oklahoma has been visited by multiple major candidates. Based on a quick search of archived news reports, these visits included, at minimum:
[hr]2008
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Mike Huckabee
Rudy Giuliani
2012
Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum
Newt Gingrich
Ron Paul
[hr]
Now, I’m not an accountant, but that looks like quite a few major Republican candidates for both of the last two presidential election cycles to me. And Oklahoma is ignored during presidential elections?
Oh. Oh.
On the PolitiCrap scale, I’m gonna give that:
And another thing. (Maybe it’s the hangover from our recent eighteen-month-long-mayoral-election-cycle-from-hell talking here, but…)
Do we need more political advertising over the Oklahoma airwaves? Is there a deficient number of sleazy politicians prancing around our cities? Do we really want extra “attention” from the national media?
I’ve always considered minimal political advertising, absentee national candidates and a dearth of intrusive media outlets features of living in flyover country, not bugs. We’ve got entirely too many beggars and thieves mucking up this place as it is.
I enjoy being able to drop by a coffee shop during election season without seeing a CNN truck and a nosy press corps out front. I don’t want politicians kissing my babies or shaking my hand or cornering me at the State Fair or taking up the good seats at my favorite bar. I don’t want to see their faces or hear their voices every time I open up a newspaper, turn on the TV, browse the internet, or check Facebook and have to deal with them in my neighborhood, too.
More importantly, a perceived “inattention” from presidential candidates does not in any way abridge my right to participate in the political process by casting a ballot for the candidate of my choice.
That’s what S.B. 906 is attempting to do.
Ironic, isn’t it?
My preferences aside, plenty of GOP presidential candidates have stopped in over the last two election cycles. They fly in, rattle a few sabres, raise a few bucks, get in some face time and fly out again. No, candidates don’t visit during the general election, and no, we don’t get many pilgrimages from Democrats. (I’ll say it again: a feature, not a bug.)
But, based on his statements, I have to ask: is it Republican Sen. Mike Mazzei’s desire is to change that? Does he want an Oklahoma that is “competitive” in a national elections? Is he willing to barter Oklahoma’s solid-red status in exchange for lucrative political advertising, a media microscope and the predations of Democrat presidential candidates?
Because if he does, S.B. 906 is a step in the right left direction.
(Much more on this subject remains to be said. Check out BatesLine, Muskogee Politico and State Rep. Jason Murphy for more on S.B. 906 and its implications for Oklahoma voters.)
Here is Sen. Mazzei’s emailed response on the passage of S.B. 906, as sent to another of his constituents.
…Regarding SB906 and a national popular vote – I have wrestled with this issue for several years contemplating what is best for the conservative voters of Oklahoma. I spent a considerable amount of time analyzing and considering the advantages and disadvantages of SB906. I was mostly concerned about any attempt to change our US Constitutional system by which the Electoral College actually chooses the President of the United States.
As I learned more about SB906, I realized that it is consistent with the principles of our Founders and does not deviate from the intentions of the U S Constitution to have the various states actually elect our President. In Article 2 Section 1, the Constitution empowers the individual states to determine how electors are chosen for the Electoral College. The legislature then as representatives of the people is empowered to determine how electors are chosen. In the past, the Oklahoma legislature provided in Statute that the winner of the Oklahoma popular vote would receive all the electors for our state. This is known as the “winner takes all” approach.
SB906 proposes that Oklahoma award it’s electors to the Presidential nominee who wins the popular vote. There are many advantages for Oklahoma voters to compact with other states in a national popular vote system. Since the compact would only initiate if enough states combine for 270 electoral votes, Oklahoma voters would now become relevant to the presidential election process. Currently over 66% of the money and time for presidential campaign is spent in battleground states like Ohio and Florida. Oklahoma never enjoys presidential candidate visits and receives minimal media attention. In reality therefore, Oklahoma voters don’t have much of a say in the presidential election process and our conservative values and policy preferences are fairly ignored. Rather, the issues and policy preferences in battleground states receive undue attention and preference. As a result, Oklahoma’s turnout is a dismal 48% of conservative Republicans for a presidential election whereas voter turnout in battleground states is generally 70%.
I have come to believe after much thought and consideration that a shift towards a national popular vote system would create much more activity and attention in Oklahoma by presidential candidates. The Republican nominee would pursue a different type of strategy focused on accumulating as many conservative votes in Oklahoma, the heartland and across the nation. In this manner, an Oklahomans vote would actually count whereas now we are basically disenfranchised in the presidential election process.
This could be incredibly important and beneficial in electing a conservative president who will take our values and ideas to Washington DC. Unfortunately, under the current system our voice is pretty much ignored and we have a giant mess in our nation’s capital. It’s time for a change and I believe this change is not only constitutional but important for the direction of our nation.
Thank you again for contacting us on these very important matters.
Best Regards,
Mike Mazzei
Senator Mike Mazzei
District 25
Renee says
It’s past time to begin calling CRAP when we see it! Bravo!
kohler says
The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012- and that in today’s political climate, the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed.
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.
kohler says
National Popular Vote does not abridge anyone’s right to participate in the political process by casting a ballot for the candidate of their choice.
If Oklahoma continues to vote Republican, Oklahoma’s solid-red status will not be a secret. Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the “canvas”) in what is called a “Certificate of Ascertainment.” They list the electors and the number of votes cast for each. You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site.
The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter 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 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.
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.
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). 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).
Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue. If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.
In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).
With National Popular Vote, every popular 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 voter 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.
kohler says
A survey of Oklahoma voters showed strong 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 79% among Republicans, 84% among Democrats, and 75% among others.
By gender, support was 84% among women and 69% among men.
By age, support was 84% among 18-29 year olds, 70% among 30-45 year olds, 75% among 46-65 year olds, and 82% for those older than 65.
NationalPopularVote
Amy Miller says
I stumbled upon your blog while looking at ideas for jute trim for a chair I’m learning how to upholster: I stayed to read your intelligent discussion of OK SB906 (even though I’m in TX.) Thank you for delving into important matters. Our freedom and way of life depends on it.
I’ll be back!