Skip to main content

Congrats, MAPS 4: The Magic of Obscure Election Dates

How surprising was it that MAPS 4 in Oklahoma City passed? It was a hard-fought, noisy campaign, with debaters “FOR” and “AGAINST” duking it out in public forums, polls showing a race that was neck-and-neck, hard feelings on both…

Oh wait. Nope. We were thinking of some other election, maybe one that occurred on a date when people were actually engaged and thinking about voting. You know, some date, like we don’t know, in November of an even-numbered year.

The MAPS 4 vote happened yesterday, December 10, in an odd-numbered year, on a date that pretty much said “Hey, really folks, don’t bother. Just leave this to us.” The “us” in a city numbering 650,000 citizens was a total of 44,439, or 6.8% of the population. That’s right, just over one-twentieth of the population has decided that everybody is going to continue paying extra sales tax.

Except that’s overstated. Actually, only 31,865 people voted in favor of MAPS 4. That’s only 5% of the population. But wait, the difference between the “Yes” votes and the “No” votes was 19,291, which means only 3% of Oklahoma City’s citizens determined that everybody else would pay the MAPS 4 tax. The turnout and margin of victory are even worse if you consider the entire Oklahoma City metropolitan area, which numbers some 1.25 million souls.

One might wonder why there was no more effort on the “No” side of the MAPS 4 proposition. The answer is simple. On the “Yes” side is a coalition of motivated individuals anxious to see upgrades at Chesapeake Arena, a new arena at the OKC Fairgrounds, youth centers, bike lanes, that crony “innovation district,” and a host of social projects, some of which include facilities the city will not even fully control.

On the “No” side are people who would like to keep as much of their own earnings as possible, but none of whom see much sense in spending a lot of time and effort fighting an election that will take place only two weeks before Christmas. After all, folks are more interested in shopping, planning vacations, and getting the last of the decorating done.

So, the motivated voters who get a LOT more benefit from MAPS 4 showed up in bigger numbers than those who bear the costs, conveniently spread out over more than just the population of OKC-proper. What a shock. MAPS 4 won.

It’s long past time for the Republican majority in the State Legislature that claims it’s for limited government to stop purposely-engineered election results by those who benefit from big government.

Now to get ready for school board elections that happen in – when is it? – oh yeah, February.

Byron Schlomach is Director of the 1889 Institute and can be reached at bschlomach@1889institute.org.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.


Popular posts from this blog

Muddy, Shallow Thinking Versus Clarity in Education Reform

Monopolies are the best! If we are to gain maximum efficiency and create the greatest value for people, monopoly is the way to go. Competition creates administrative inefficiency since instead of one set of managers, there are as many as there are companies, and all of them cost money. Competitive companies make products that do the same basic things, but waste resources by making products with different features. Standardized products would save money. Were research and development under one roof, instead of many competitive ones, researchers could coordinate more closely, saving money and ultimately being even more innovative. Monopolies would therefore benefit everyone. Everything in the first paragraph is, of course, balderdash . Monopolies, especially those created by government, stifle innovation, develop bloated management, produce too little at low quality, and charge too much. Why? Because they can. They’re monopolists. Without competition and with nearly guaranteed ...
Read more

Senator Sanders Misses the Mark On Oklahoma Education

Minimum Wage for Teachers Senator Sanders recently wrote an op-ed for the Oklahoman. Among other radical ideas, he proposes a federal minimum wage for teachers of $60,000. In a free market, a minimum wage hurts those who earn less than the minimum wage. If they can’t produce more value than the minimum wage, they will be unemployable. For teachers, who operate in a regulated market, it will still be more difficult for inexperienced teachers to find a job. Incentives to pursue further training and education, or to take on additional roles like advising clubs or coaching sports will be diminished. Or perhaps young teachers will be required to take on one or more of these extracurricular activities to justify their higher cost.   Lost in the promise of a minimum wage is the idea that the best teachers should be paid the most. Instead, most public school teachers in Oklahoma are paid in lockstep - meaning that an outstanding teacher makes the same as a mediocre teacher wit...
Read more

Oklahoma Is OK, but Seriously, That’s Not OK

The Americans at the table, negotiating a business deal, ask one of their number, “You can speak Dutch?” He replies, “I’m OK.” With his fellow Americans looking doubtful, he proceeds to mistranslate what they want him to say to their Dutch counterparts. The “OK” translator tells the Dutch that the Americans really need a hug, when he was supposed to tell them they really need the deal. With that, the AT&T commercial ends as one of the Dutch negotiators gives an American a hug with the announcer saying, “When just OK is not OK.” There are several of these commercials, each with a different scenario, in which, indeed, just OK is not OK. And every time I see one of these commercials I think of the license plates that were once so common – “ Oklahoma is OK. ” As someone who works to develop policy suggestions intended to make Oklahoma better, and hopefully, the best that Oklahoma can be, it often seems that slogan – Oklahoma is OK – gets in the way. The fact is, in most r...
Read more

The Unfairness of Concentrated Wealth is NOTHING Compared to the Unfairness of Redistributing It

Socialist types like to accuse rich corporate types of having “too much” wealth. Simple fairness, they claim, dictates that one person should not have so much when so many have so little. But if we’re going to talk about fairness, let’s really give it fair consideration. That means looking beyond the petty jealousy and thinking about the fairness of seizing wealth from those who earned it and giving it to those who did not.   How did the wealthy get that way? The socialist types claim that the greedy capitalists exploit their workers and their consumers. Is that true? Let’s start with the workers. Jeff Bezos may be greedy. I wouldn’t know, I’ve never met him. But I did work for him - in fact I hired other people to work for him. So I can say with reasonable certainty that he hasn’t created his enormous wealth by exploiting his workers. They were all there voluntarily.   Before attending law school, I spent several months working for the temp agency that hires seasonal workers ...
Read more