Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Asinine: Oklahoma Senate tries to fix future presidential elections. Spiffy: By granting their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 156
    More: Spiffy, Oklahoma Senate, national popular, Oklahoma, reelection, electoral vote, humans, elections, American Legislative Exchange Council  
•       •       •

2170 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Feb 2014 at 5:22 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



156 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-14 05:08:08 PM  
You done goofed, Oklahoma.
 
2014-02-14 05:20:00 PM  
wha?
 
2014-02-14 05:22:10 PM  
And in future news, Oklahoma just cast half of its electoral votes for Hillary Clinton.
 
2014-02-14 05:26:50 PM  
So, Gore would've gotten a few votes. Obama creamed Mitt in the popular vote, and Hilary will blow anyone else from the Republican party out of the water.

Something tells me that they haven't thought their cunning plan through.
 
2014-02-14 05:27:35 PM  
This is an extremely bad idea.
 
2014-02-14 05:27:44 PM  
So what they're saying is that arguable the most conservative state in the union is now a blue state?

<imokaywiththis.jpg>
 
2014-02-14 05:28:18 PM  

kwyjibo2007: This is an extremely bad idea.


Why is that?
 
2014-02-14 05:28:49 PM  
So Oklahoma will go blue sooner than Texas?

Like gay marriage being allowed, however shortly, in Utah, I did not see that coming.
 
2014-02-14 05:31:29 PM  
fark you, Rhode Island.
 
2014-02-14 05:32:15 PM  
They also disenfranchise the voters in their state if they don't vote the same as the rest of the nation. And being oklahoma I would bet they are a great deal more more conservative than the rest of the country. So yeah. Great idea morons. Hopefully your citizens voice their displeasure but knowing republicans they probably won't.
 
2014-02-14 05:32:17 PM  
img.thesun.co.uk
 
2014-02-14 05:33:45 PM  
(reads TFA)

ALEC is against it, which means it will not take effect here. Mattress Mary (the governor) is one of ALEC's favorite politicians, and she is happy to be one of their whores. She'll veto it.
 
2014-02-14 05:34:01 PM  

Serious Black: kwyjibo2007: This is an extremely bad idea.

Why is that?


A representative republic is supposed to have the states represented in Washington DC. This further erodes that. Carried to it's logical conclusion a president would only need to campaign and carry the largest cities in the largest states. Then they can ignore the rest of the country. And it devolves into a tyranny of the majority.
 
2014-02-14 05:35:41 PM  

Truman Burbank: (reads TFA)

ALEC is against it, which means it will not take effect here. Mattress Mary (the governor) is one of ALEC's favorite politicians, and she is happy to be one of their whores. She'll veto it.


Happy whores are the best whores.
 
2014-02-14 05:37:22 PM  
There are other states that have done this  http://www.nationalpopularvote.com and it is mostly to do away with the Electoral College by working around it.
No one has actually adopted the strategy yet, as the other states are waiting until the actual election will be decided by this method.
 
2014-02-14 05:37:32 PM  

Almost Everybody Poops: So what they're saying is that arguable the most conservative state in the union is now a blue state?

<imokaywiththis.jpg>


what they are saying is - since the state "hasn't had No Democratic nominee in the  the Sooner State (god bless OU)  since '64 , we gonna just throw our votes out there with the cows and cow patties , cause it doesn't make no difference no way yeeeehaw pass me a gun bubba "
 
2014-02-14 05:37:33 PM  

Wicked Chinchilla: They also disenfranchise the voters in their state if they don't vote the same as the rest of the nation. And being oklahoma I would bet they are a great deal more more conservative than the rest of the country. So yeah. Great idea morons. Hopefully your citizens voice their displeasure but knowing republicans they probably won't.


blog.angelatung.com
 
2014-02-14 05:37:35 PM  
Wow, I did not expect such fairness out of Republican lawmakers. Usually they try to parcel out electoral votes by the gerrymandered House districts they control. See Pennsylvania in 2012, where they lost the state in the Presidential election but won the majority of House seats.
 
2014-02-14 05:37:38 PM  

kwyjibo2007: Serious Black: kwyjibo2007: This is an extremely bad idea.

Why is that?

A representative republic is supposed to have the states represented in Washington DC. This further erodes that. Carried to it's logical conclusion a president would only need to campaign and carry the largest cities in the largest states. Then they can ignore the rest of the country. And it devolves into a tyranny of the majority.


How is this different than only campaigning in swing states? Also, tyranny of the majority?
 
2014-02-14 05:38:21 PM  
Something about this whole interstate compact situation strikes me as odd. After all the "zomg it's such a close race" silliness of 2012, if I was a more cynical person I might wonder if the media is behind it, wanting to stretch out election night coverage even in cases of an imminent landslide by insisting they can't call the election until after the votes are tallied from (population-heavy) Texas and California. I mean, I understand the advantages of it, but I can't help wondering if it would actually be happening if there wasn't a financial motive behind it.
 
2014-02-14 05:38:40 PM  

kwyjibo2007: Serious Black: kwyjibo2007: This is an extremely bad idea.

Why is that?

A representative republic is supposed to have the states represented in Washington DC. This further erodes that. Carried to it's logical conclusion a president would only need to campaign and carry the largest cities in the largest states. Then they can ignore the rest of the country. And it devolves into a tyranny of the majority.


Bah, screw that.  Fark Patriots know more about how to structure democracy than the idiot founding fathers.
 
2014-02-14 05:41:04 PM  

kwyjibo2007: Serious Black: kwyjibo2007: This is an extremely bad idea.

Why is that?

A representative republic is supposed to have the states represented in Washington DC. This further erodes that. Carried to it's logical conclusion a president would only need to campaign and carry the largest cities in the largest states. Then they can ignore the rest of the country. And it devolves into a tyranny of the majority.


Yes, compared to the current politics level, where all politicians pay attention to each area equally.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2012-president ia l-campaign-visits/

This change will shift their focus from "major population centers in swing states and fundraisers in rich areas" to "major population centers and fundraisers in rich areas."
 
2014-02-14 05:41:54 PM  

Cletus C.: kwyjibo2007: Serious Black: kwyjibo2007: This is an extremely bad idea.

Why is that?

A representative republic is supposed to have the states represented in Washington DC. This further erodes that. Carried to it's logical conclusion a president would only need to campaign and carry the largest cities in the largest states. Then they can ignore the rest of the country. And it devolves into a tyranny of the majority.

How is this different than only campaigning in swing states? Also, tyranny of the majority?


You raise a good point. We have massive agricultural and ethanol subsidies because of the primary system. But the states are supposed to be represented that's why we use the electoral college and why the direct election of Senators was a step backwards for the country.
 
2014-02-14 05:43:23 PM  

farker99: There are other states that have done this  http://www.nationalpopularvote.com and it is mostly to do away with the Electoral College by working around it.
No one has actually adopted the strategy yet, as the other states are waiting until the actual election will be decided by this method.


Oklahoma can save a lot of money by not even staging an election. They can just wait for other states to do all the heavy lifting, then say, "Ok. Here ya go."
 
2014-02-14 05:44:14 PM  

kidgenius: Something tells me that they haven't thought their cunning plan through.


Sure they have...study it through. As soon as the GOP nominates a sufficiently conservative candidate the 'Murican people will overwhelmingly elect him, and Okielahoma will be on the winning side.
 
2014-02-14 05:44:26 PM  

subotai54: kwyjibo2007: Serious Black: kwyjibo2007: This is an extremely bad idea.

Why is that?

A representative republic is supposed to have the states represented in Washington DC. This further erodes that. Carried to it's logical conclusion a president would only need to campaign and carry the largest cities in the largest states. Then they can ignore the rest of the country. And it devolves into a tyranny of the majority.

Yes, compared to the current politics level, where all politicians pay attention to each area equally.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2012-president ia l-campaign-visits/

This change will shift their focus from "major population centers in swing states and fundraisers in rich areas" to "major population centers and fundraisers in rich areas."


It'll amplify it.
 
2014-02-14 05:45:46 PM  

dsmith42: Wow, I did not expect such fairness out of Republican lawmakers. Usually they try to parcel out electoral votes by the gerrymandered House districts they control. See Pennsylvania in 2012, where they lost the state in the Presidential election but won the majority of House seats.


They only do that sort of thing in states where the voters voted for Obama but the legislatures are controlled by the GOP. Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Nebraska, Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Florida immediately spring to mind.
 
2014-02-14 05:48:32 PM  

kwyjibo2007: tyranny


jeeeeezzzzuz  H Palamino Christ

there is that word again
 
2014-02-14 05:49:16 PM  
Cunning plan.... backfiring....something something
 
2014-02-14 05:49:25 PM  

kwyjibo2007: subotai54: kwyjibo2007: Serious Black: kwyjibo2007: This is an extremely bad idea.

Why is that?

A representative republic is supposed to have the states represented in Washington DC. This further erodes that. Carried to it's logical conclusion a president would only need to campaign and carry the largest cities in the largest states. Then they can ignore the rest of the country. And it devolves into a tyranny of the majority.

Yes, compared to the current politics level, where all politicians pay attention to each area equally.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2012-president ia l-campaign-visits/

This change will shift their focus from "major population centers in swing states and fundraisers in rich areas" to "major population centers and fundraisers in rich areas."

It'll amplify it.


Why do the people out in the rural areas deserve a vote that counts for more than someone that is living in a big city?
 
2014-02-14 05:55:26 PM  
www.ilolnow.com
 
2014-02-14 05:57:11 PM  

Cletus C.: Also, tyranny of the majority?


Yes, it's a term used by people who don't understand the concept of democracy. Usually used by people describing a majority party they do not agree with.


kwyjibo2007: It'll amplify it.


Get back here with those goalposts.
 
2014-02-14 05:57:12 PM  
Okay, I have to admit I don't understand. So if candidate A gets more votes in the state, but candidate B has more votes overall on the national level, candidate B gets the electoral votes? That seems...sketchy at best.
 
2014-02-14 05:59:19 PM  
As an Oklahoma Farker, I'm ok with this.
 
2014-02-14 06:00:26 PM  

kwyjibo2007: subotai54: kwyjibo2007: Serious Black: kwyjibo2007: This is an extremely bad idea.

Why is that?

A representative republic is supposed to have the states represented in Washington DC. This further erodes that. Carried to it's logical conclusion a president would only need to campaign and carry the largest cities in the largest states. Then they can ignore the rest of the country. And it devolves into a tyranny of the majority.

Yes, compared to the current politics level, where all politicians pay attention to each area equally.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2012-president ia l-campaign-visits/

This change will shift their focus from "major population centers in swing states and fundraisers in rich areas" to "major population centers and fundraisers in rich areas."

It'll amplify it.


What the heck does that mean?  NJ has 14 votes.  Ohio has 18. But they got 9 visits vs 148. California has 55 votes and 45 visits.  Kansas has 6 votes, and 0 visits. There's no way that if we as a nation switch, that Ohio will continue to get the most attention, while relative juggernauts get basically none.  So what are you talking about?
 
2014-02-14 06:01:09 PM  

kwyjibo2007: Cletus C.: kwyjibo2007: Serious Black: kwyjibo2007: This is an extremely bad idea.

Why is that?

A representative republic is supposed to have the states represented in Washington DC. This further erodes that. Carried to it's logical conclusion a president would only need to campaign and carry the largest cities in the largest states. Then they can ignore the rest of the country. And it devolves into a tyranny of the majority.

How is this different than only campaigning in swing states? Also, tyranny of the majority?

You raise a good point. We have massive agricultural and ethanol subsidies because of the primary system. But the states are supposed to be represented that's why we use the electoral college and why the direct election of Senators was a step backwards for the country.


You need to check your history. James Madison stated quite clearly that he would have preferred a national popular vote and cited several states that elected their chief executives by popular vote as examples of why it would work. The problem was that slave-owning states hated the idea. They didn't want slaves to vote, but they wanted them to be counted for purposes of how much their states contributed to the decision of who would be president. That's why they came up with both the Electoral College and the absolutely abhorrent Three-fifths Compromise.
 
2014-02-14 06:01:42 PM  

kidgenius: So, Gore would've gotten a few votes. Obama creamed Mitt in the popular vote, and Hilary will blow anyone else from the Republican party out of the water.

Something tells me that they haven't thought their cunning plan through.


never interrupt a mistake in progress.  :D
 
2014-02-14 06:07:58 PM  
This just in: the Oklahoma Senate is more sane than the people who voted for Ted Cruz in the abomination of a state below them on a map.

Progress: it's funny when it comes from unexpected places.
 
2014-02-14 06:10:16 PM  
Good.

Hillbillies and sister-farkers need less say about America is run.
 
2014-02-14 06:10:56 PM  

kwyjibo2007: Serious Black: kwyjibo2007: This is an extremely bad idea.

Why is that?

A representative republic is supposed to have the states represented in Washington DC. This further erodes that. Carried to it's logical conclusion a president would only need to campaign and carry the largest cities in the largest states. Then they can ignore the rest of the country. And it devolves into a tyranny of the majority.


Personally, I've always thought the majority should have a little bit more power. When large chunks of the population are concentrated in smaller areas resulting in large chunks of the total land area barely populated, it stands to reason that the country's electoral representation should support an agenda more contrary to the heavy agricultural points.

Like Abolition of Slavery. Or the New Deal. Or the Civil Rights Act.

The founding men were very smart for their time, but they also owned large estates and wanted to keep it that way. Maybe they're wrong.
 
2014-02-14 06:16:58 PM  
Deserves a hero tag I'd say.
 
2014-02-14 06:22:48 PM  

nocturnal001: Deserves a hero tag I'd say.


I'll save the hero tag for when it is signed into law.

/subby
//fourth green today thanks to my bribing the Farkmins
///slashies come in threes
 
2014-02-14 06:26:00 PM  

kwyjibo2007: A representative republic is supposed to have the states represented in Washington DC.


Not all. No one is suggesting that this should change how Senators and Representatives are elected and sent to Congress, which is where the actual representation you are talking about takes place.

Carried to it's logical conclusion a president would only need to campaign and carry the largest cities in the largest states. Then they can ignore the rest of the country.

Many of the largest cities in the country do not currently get visits from POTUS candidates at all. How many times did John McCain visit San Francisco or Barack Obama visit Oklahoma City? Places where more people can observe and interact with the candidate are ideal places to campaign. There is nothing wrong with that.

And it devolves into a tyranny of the majority.

The current system is already a tyranny of the minority, where states with virtually no population but lots of land collectively hold a grossly disproportionately influence in the election of the Presidency. How many times did Obama and Romney come to Iowa in 2012 in search of more votes instead of more diverse areas?

I'd like to know why this is a poor idea too, but nothing you've said is convincing.
 
2014-02-14 06:26:40 PM  
What you're all looking at is a textbook example of echo chamber policy.

Since Obama got 8 million fraudulent votes, this will fix everything once enough states enact voter I'D laws.

Gentlemen, please proceed.
 
2014-02-14 06:27:54 PM  
kwyjibo2007 * * Smartest * Funniest 2014-02-14 05:34:01 PM Serious Black: kwyjibo2007: This is an extremely bad idea. Why is that? A representative republic is supposed to have the states represented in Washington DC. This further erodes that. Carried to it's logical conclusion a president would only need to campaign and carry the largest cities in the largest states. Then they can ignore the rest of the country. And it devolves into a tyranny of the majority.
===============================================

Well, right now it's all about campaigning in the roughly 5 or so states that are 'swing' states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Wisconsin, Minnesota... and perhaps Colorado) and ignoring everything else.

With no electoral college, essentially, everywhere matters. You'd focus on the biggest states first, yes, but every vote counts.

Only states left out of the woodwork would be like... Wyoming. Because it's not worth it to go all the way out there for the sake of like 5 people.
 
2014-02-14 06:34:25 PM  

jake3988: kwyjibo2007 * * Smartest * Funniest 2014-02-14 05:34:01 PM Serious Black: kwyjibo2007: This is an extremely bad idea. Why is that? A representative republic is supposed to have the states represented in Washington DC. This further erodes that. Carried to it's logical conclusion a president would only need to campaign and carry the largest cities in the largest states. Then they can ignore the rest of the country. And it devolves into a tyranny of the majority.
===============================================

Well, right now it's all about campaigning in the roughly 5 or so states that are 'swing' states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Wisconsin, Minnesota... and perhaps Colorado) and ignoring everything else.

With no electoral college, essentially, everywhere matters. You'd focus on the biggest states first, yes, but every vote counts.

Only states left out of the woodwork would be like... Wyoming. Because it's not worth it to go all the way out there for the sake of like 5 people.


But it may be worthwhile to spend money on ads there, especially since the cost of an ad in Cheyenne is a lot lower than the cost in NYC.
 
2014-02-14 06:48:27 PM  
The only legitimate argument I've heard against a nationwide popular vote is a close election necessitates a recount of everybody and not just a state or two.
 
2014-02-14 06:48:34 PM  
I'll believe that when I really see it happen.

/okla
 
2014-02-14 06:48:55 PM  
If Oklahoma had this law back in 2000 Al Gore would have won by 3 electoral votes
 
2014-02-14 06:53:19 PM  
What a f***ing stupid idea!

\Ballot box stuffing is gonna get real now, biatches!
 
Displayed 50 of 156 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report