Bush Sr?

Ok, maybe not poppa Bush. He was born in Mass and moved to Texas with his wife and kids at the age of 40 Ford was born in Omaha but shortly afterward his mom left his dad and moved to Chicago and then to Michigan.

But, the last who would cover both criteria is Dewey - born in Michigan and associated with NYC. The last victorious candidate? Cooliidge in 1924.

So here is an possibly interesting development. From my daily email about politics in Pennsylvania

State Senator Dominic Pileggi (R-Delaware) has gathered some significant support to enact legislation to change the way Pennsylvania counts its electoral votes. Governor Tom Corbett, Speaker of the House Sam Smith (R-Jefferson) and State House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R-Allegheny) have all said they support the change. Pileggi is proposing to have electoral votes allotted based on each Congressional district, instead of winner-takes-all votes

If this passes, it means PA's electoral college votes could be split between the candidates in 2012. Using 2008 as an example, Obama won 9 of 19 congressional districs so if this was in place then he would have gotten 11 EC votes from PA and McCain would have gotten 10.

The change for 2012 could be interesting.

Russell, as far as I'm aware, a couple of States do the same thing - Maine is one and I can't recall the other. They are much smaller than Pa and so the effect is much lower.

In terms of a more representative result, it clearly is fairer. But if it is done piecemeal, with some states splitting and others winner-takes-all, it could be very distorted.

danivon wrote:Russell, as far as I'm aware, a couple of States do the same thing - Maine is one and I can't recall the other. They are much smaller than Pa and so the effect is much lower.

You are correct Dan. Right now only Nebraska and Maine do it this way. And you are correct, having it happen in PA can have a huge effect on the 2012 election. In 2008 Obama won 9 of 19 congressional districts. Now we are losing one district and most likely Murtha's old seat will be the one eliminated. This means Obama will probably win 8 of 18 congressional districts as well as the statewide vote. This means the vote will split 10-10.

danivon wrote:In terms of a more representative result, it clearly is fairer. But if it is done piecemeal, with some states splitting and others winner-takes-all, it could be very distorted.

Well, electoral vote allocation is a state decision. Interestingly, this is the way the electoral votes were decided in the first 2 presidential elections. However, in 1796 only Viriginia and North Carolina followed this system and it caused Thomas Jefferson to lose the Presidency. Virigina gave one electoral vote and North Carolina 2 electoral votes to the Federalists even though the Republicans had won the state-wide vote. For 1800 Jefferson wanted Virginia to go with a state wide vote decision because he felt going with the congressional weakened the influence of Viriginia in the Presidential elections.

Ron Paul is still spamming polls.

Good news for Huntsman, though. He made it all the way up to 5th!

Guapo wrote:Ron Paul is still spamming polls.

Good news for Huntsman, though. He made it all the way up to 5th!

Well, we'll see what it looks like when people actually start to pay attention to the race and vote.

Straw polls this far out are not good indicators. The sample is small and self-selecting, and there are just so many possible effects between now and a primary. Huntsman does seem to lack traction, but I think Paul will still slip back when the real votes take place, as he did in 08

danivon wrote:Huntsman does seem to lack traction, but I think Paul will still slip back when the real votes take place, as he did in 08

The interesting this about this the experience I am having with Huntsman is the more people I know who identify as moderate Republicans or Indepdendants learn about him, the more they like him and say they would consider voting for him.

And I am not talking about me telling them about him. Michael Smerconish did an interview with him about 3 weeks ago and then wrote an article about it/him in the Philadelphia Inquirer. These are people who heard the interview or read the article.

I think when he starts doing some advertising he is going to start getting a little more traction.

Curious EC vote change in PA
One question, would this now make PA more or less important to "target"?

PA is sometimes one of those "Battleground States" where the victory could go either way. In a winner take all battle, then PA becomes all the more important. Suddenly you are one of the keys to victory and your state is targeted by both parties. When it means a difference of only one or two votes, your state is suddenly "less important". (like my own New York, a big state with lot's of EC votes but solidly Democratic so any campaign money spent by the Republicans is pretty much wasted and we do see very little in the way of such Presidential ads by either party on local broadcasts)

But on the other hand, let's say PA is felt to be solidly on one side. Lets say Democrat, the way it WAS, the Republicans would then largely ignore PA knowing it's a lost cause and money ill spent. If the change were made, they would now still target her, maybe just a bit less so? (My NY example now brings us into play and we are much more important to both parties!)

Overall I like the new idea, but I see some big reasons to keep it the way it is as well. And if all states were to switch, then the whole EC "theory" kind of falls apart???

The main drawback of the current system is that it makes it much more likely that a President is elected with a fewer votes than another candidate. I understand the desire to have a 'geographical' mandate and to balance the power of the large states with the small ones, but actually it seems to me that the current system makes the large states more important if they are swing states. So, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia and Penn are far more important than the vast majority of States. Caifornia, NY, Texas and Illinois are only less influential while they remain 'safe' for one party or the other.

In fact the weight of the smaller states would go up. All of those with one congressional district would still effectively be winner-take all. Looking at Maine and Nebraska, it's not likely that a losing candidate would pick up more than 1 or 2 EC votes in small states. But the large states would have their power diluted and - perhaps more importantly - voters for the 'loser' in those states would actually have more of a say than they are likely to now.

The Constitution says that it's up to each State legislature to determine how to choose the EC members, so it is only by convention that the vast majority have chosen the current system. Ironically, Madison argued that the Electoral College was designed to reduce the power of 'faction' in the US. With the development of the two-party system, it has instead appeared to entrench the power of factions.

I read that in the late 1960s there was an attempt to get an Amendment through to abolish the electoral college and replace it with a system based on winning the popular vote whereby if no candidate got over 40% in a first poll, there'd be a run-off. This is similar to the means of electing Presidents in many democratic republics around the world.

With the development of the two-party system, it has instead appeared to entrench the power of factions.

I agree, but I think it can be more accurately described as entrenching the power of the two-party system.

When I first heard of the story, I found it ironic (but not surprising) that the Democrats are complaining about such a measure. By allowing electors to vote their conscience, a more "democratic" election would occur. But third parties would also have more opportunity to get electoral votes. A few million votes means nothing--an electoral vote is everything. Once a party consistently shows it can get e/c votes, I think many more people who agree with that party will see it as viable and vote their conscience. That's why the LP, Green Party, Constitution, and other independent parties and figures typically unite on ballot access measures.

That's the other side of the coin. More democratic e/c voting processes can only go as far as the options on the table. As you see in European nations, the parliamentary system is more naturally designed this way so you get better representation. Here, we sit and argue about who is the lesser of 20 evils

Guapo wrote:

With the development of the two-party system, it has instead appeared to entrench the power of factions.

I agree, but I think it can be more accurately described as entrenching the power of the two-party system.

As far as I can see, you are right. Each party is a super-faction. Within each party are also some pretty clear factions.

When I first heard of the story, I found it ironic (but not surprising) that the Democrats are complaining about such a measure. By allowing electors to vote their conscience, a more "democratic" election would occur. But third parties would also have more opportunity to get electoral votes. A few million votes means nothing--an electoral vote is everything. Once a party consistently shows it can get e/c votes, I think many more people who agree with that party will see it as viable and vote their conscience. That's why the LP, Green Party, Constitution, and other independent parties and figures typically unite on ballot access measures.

I think it's unlikely that the hurdle of having to win in an electoral district will help the smaller parties much. The Democrats don't like it because the Republicans will pick up several EC votes in a normally Democratic State.

That's the other side of the coin. More democratic e/c voting processes can only go as far as the options on the table. As you see in European nations, the parliamentary system is more naturally designed this way so you get better representation. Here, we sit and argue about who is the lesser of 20 evils

Proportional Representation is the best one for allowing small parties into legislatures. The election for a single President probably needs different rules (and PR doesn't seem to fit, to be honest - a run off as per the 1969/70 attempted amendment would, or an Alternative Vote system)

On Richard Perry, what I find most interesting is that although he is described as a Tea Party candidate, he doesn't seem very Tea Party to me. It at least 3 areas (HPV vaccinations, favored tuition rates for illegal immigrants, and government funding of private enterprise) he is taking a non tea party stance. Regardless of your feelings on these 3 issues, I don't understand why he is considered a Tea Party darling.

I wonder whether some of this is that Republicans tend to crave strong leaders. They like candidates who project decisiveness and confidence. Separating personality from politics, you wouldn't expect Obama's personality in a Republican president (or for that matter a Bush 2's personality in a Democratic president). We saw that Trump quickly rose to the top of the polls, and then just as quickly crashed. Meanwhile Pawlenty was out because he didn't deal with Romney and Bachmann forcefully enough on the debates.

I think Republicans are still looking for that decisive strong leader who will sweep them off their feet. I think they will be disappointed with Perry; they'll settle for Romney for lack of a better choice, but what they really want is someone else to run and they just can't seem to find that person.

Kind of like how the Democrats are always trying to elect a new Kennedy?

One problem with a strong Presidential system over a Parliamentary one is that personality becomes a bigger issue. The difference has narrowed where parliamentary systems have majority party systems.