Mountains Out Of Poll Hills - Follow Up II

"So thank Doug Hoffman for showing the GOP establishment that a conservative can win in upstate New York and for saving us from the disaster of Dede Scozzafava."

Writes John McCormack at The Weekly Standard. I am not sure how he arrives at this conclusion. A conservative did not win proves that a conservative can win, makes no sense.

Of the counties that overlap the NY-23 congressional district and the NYS-122 Assembly district Scozzafava won them handily in her last contested Assembly race. In 2008 she was unopposed on all lines on the election ballot. In 2006 she was opposed by Democrat Karl Williams. In 2006 she carried Jefferson County by more than 20 points over the Democrat while Hoffman in 2009 lost by three points. IN 2006 Scozzafava carried Lewis County by roughly 30 points over the Democrat while in 2009 Hoffman won by only four points over Owens. In 2006 Scozzafava carried Oswego County by more than 25 points over the Democrat while Hoffman in 2009 was over Owens by only two points. Finally in 2006 Scozzafava carried St. Lawrence County by more than 30 points over Williams the Democrat while in 2009 Hoffman was crushed by Owens by over 16 points. (Forgive me for being so dull, but I could not does this quickly any other way).

With that said Scozzafava was not an unknown quantity. Of the 11 counties that make up the NY-23 these four are the largest by population if you remove for Onieda County. Onieda was carried in 2006 by the Democratic Assembly candidate and in 2009 was carried by Owens by 17 points.

I think it is being ignored that John McHugh the predecessor to the NY23 seat was not a terrible conservative as judged by the American Conservative Union. There is absolutely nothing that tells me that the 2009 result is a victory for conservatives.

Previous posts:

Mountains Out Of Poll Hills - Follow Up

Mountains Out Of Poll Hills

Sphere: Related Content

Is the Electoral College necessary? Or is change dangerous?

In How To Win the Presidency Tara Ross writes about the National Popular Vote for the The Weekly Standard today. She predicts "devastating ramifications would follow any elimination of the Electoral College." The devastation seems to be the possibility of new parties, felons, that are allowed to vote, being equal to people that are not felons and litigation after elections.

First, new parties would not be too bad. But, I don't think new parties would emerge very quickly if we side-stepped the present electoral college process. The two BIG PARTIES have a very strong hold on the process in each state. The National Popular Vote change won't change that very quickly.

Second, felons should vote in all states.

Third, is litigation really a concern after Bush Gore, Franken Coleman and the others.

I agree with Ms. Ross that this plan needs to more detail as to handle disputes with states and how to handle the procedure for recounts. But the Electoral College is out dated.

She is correct that we should make changes to the process that create one national standard. Presidential elections should be national elections not 50 separate elections with 50 different sets of rules, but, that requires a constitutional amendment.

The subject Ms. Ross avoids in her essay is the shift in power that the "red states" (states with less people, generally) will feel if we change the current process. But as someone well known said, we are not "a collection of red states and blue states we have been and always will be the United States of America." Sphere: Related Content