Thursday, March 3, 2011

Following are several important items that are time sensitive.

lawmakers are foolishly pushing a bill that would be very detrimental
to Oklahoma if passed in regards to the presidential elections. Right
now the bill, SB 841, has passed out of the Rules Committee and is
waiting to be voted on by the full Senate. If this bill were to pass
and be signed by the Governor, it would have Oklahoma join with other
states and establish the Agreement Among the States to Elect the
President and Vice President by a National Popular Vote.

The original author of this legislation was the liberal Senator John
Sparks (D-Norman). However, not wanting to miss out on such earth
shattering hope and change, Newly elected Senator Rob Johnson (R-
Kingfisher) has taken the bill over and now has become its principle
author. His House sponsor is the perennial RINO nominee, State
Representative Don Armes (R-Lawton).

If this were to pass, it would do away with the Electoral College and
change our elections for the President and Vice President into a
national popular vote. Our Founding Fathers were brilliant when they
designed the Electoral College system for a variety of reasons. One of
the most important reasons, is because each state has the same number
of electors (2) from the U. S. Senate, and as such, that helps to keep
the larger population states from running rough shod over the lower
population states.

If this change were to occur, then the large cities would have an
inordinate amount of influence on Presidential elections. Our big
cities have become rats nests for liberalism. We must not allow this
to happen.

ACTION: Please call your personal Senator’s office Today or no later
than next Monday. Ask your Senator to oppose SB 841. If you don’t know
the direct line for your Senator, then call the Senate switch board at
(405) 524-0126 and tell the operator your Senator’s name and you will
be connected to that office. If you don’t know your Senator’s name
(naughty, naughty) then call your county election board, give them
your address and they will give you that information. Save that
information even if you have to tattoo the number on your knee.

NEXT: Call Senator Rob Johnson’s office (405 524-0126 ask the
operator for Senator Rob Johnson) and ask him to pull the legislation
and throw it in the trash.

NEXT: Call Representative Don Armes’ office (405 557-7307 this is
the direct line to his office) and ask that he would withdraw his
House sponsorship to this bill.

These action items are very important, please DO THIS today or next
Monday at the latest.

++ CORRECTION - In Tuesday morning’s e-mail I announced that Avi
Lipkin would be speaking during the Sunday morning and evening
services at Fairview Baptist in Edmond. He will be speaking in the
Sunday evening (6:00 p.m.) service ONLY, not in the morning service.
Sorry for the mistaken information.

Republican party Convention will be held at Southern Nazarene
University on 39th street in downtown Bethany. If you were not able to
attend a precinct meeting, I am told you may arrive at 8:00 a.m. if
you live in Oklahoma County and are registered as a Republican to get
credentialed to attend. If you have the time, it is important to
attend this county convention and learn the process, to become a more
effective citizen, bring your voter registration card.

++ MONDAY EVENING - MOORE AREA - Avi Lipkin will be speaking
March 7th at 7:00 p.m. in the Crown Center, 13300 South Western. John
Youll is the Pastor.

++ TUESDAY EVENING - DEL CITY AREA - Avi Lipkin will be speaking
March 8th at Destiny Christian Church, 3801 S.E. 29th in Del City.
Lawrence Neisent is the Pastor.

++ TUESDAY EVENING - ADA AREA - The Ada Tea Party will hold their
monthly meeting in the Industrial Arts Classroom on the Pontotoc
County Career Tech Center. The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. and
feature Edmond pastor Paul Blair, State Insurance Commissioner John
Doak, State Representative Tom Newell and Dr. Ed White. This is a
great group of patriots. When I spoke at their meeting last month,
they had about 70 people present. I was impressed with their base of
knowledge and desire to make a positive difference in Oklahoma and our

Thanks for your time and attention.

Charlie Meadows


toto said...

A survey of 800 Oklahoma voters conducted on May 5–6, 2009 showed 81% 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 75% 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.

Oklahoma voters were also asked a 3-way question: "Do you prefer a system where the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states on a nationwide basis is elected President, or one like the one used in Nebraska and Maine where electoral voters are dispensed by Congressional district, or one in which all of the state's electoral votes would be given to the statewide winner?"

The results of this three-way question were that

* 77% favored a national popular vote,
* 13% favored awarding its electoral votes by congressional district, and
* 10% favored the existing statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).

toto said...

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill preserves the Electoral College, while assuring that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. Every vote, everywhere would be counted 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.

In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that only 14 states and their voters will matter 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. Candidates will not care about 72% of the voters-- voters in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, including Oklahoma. 2012 campaigning would be 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. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). Then, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The Electoral College that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. It does not abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

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). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA . The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, and WA. These 7 states possess 74 electoral votes — 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

toto said...

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 obscurely far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.

When presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in 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 certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.

For example, in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles.

If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a "big city" approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn't be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.

toto said...

Under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in the 11 biggest states -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.

The political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

The margins generated by the nation's largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas -- 1,691,267 Republican
* New York -- 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia -- 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina -- 426,778 Republican
* Illinois -- 513,342 Democratic
* California -- 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey -- 211,826 Democratic

To put these numbers in perspective, 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).

Anonymous said...

Wow. Toto writes a lot. Basically, the problem with the Electoral College winner-take-all is that it means OK doesn't matter. OK votes red and reliably red. So no candidate cares about OK. Just just look at the map at Despite people from Oklahoma donating $4,000,000 to both the McCain and Obama campaigns, the 2 candidates only bothered to spend $4,000 in Oklahoma. And neither of them visited. Even once. OK voters just don't count under the current system. That's why a change makes sense to me - the person who gets the most votes wins.