Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., Resigns; Illinois Must Hold Special Congressional Election No Later Than March 2013

Posted on by November 23, 2012
10

On November 21, Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., resigned, only 15 days after he had been re-elected from the Illinois 2nd district in Chicago. See this story, which says that under Illinois law, taxpayers will spend $5,000,000 administering a special primary and a special election. The law requires the special election no later than March 21.

The November 6 election had three candidates on the ballot. Besides Jackson, there was a Republican and an independent, Marcus Lewis. The story linked above says Lewis plans to run in the special election. Assuming he wants to run as an independent in the special election, he will need a petition signed by 5% of the vote cast in the November 2012 election. That will be at least 14,336 valid signatures, a very severe burden. He only needed 5,000 valid signatures to qualify for the November 2012 election, because the 5% formula is not in effect for U.S. House elections in the year after redistricting.

President Obama is Not the First President Re-Elected With a Smaller Share of Either the Popular Vote or the Electoral College Vote

Posted on by November 23, 2012
9

Several writers and commentators have written or stated that President Obama is the first President in history to be re-elected with a smaller share of the popular vote and/or a smaller share of the electoral vote than he had received in his initial election. Different individuals have expressed this in slightly different ways. Sometimes their statements are false and other times they are technically true but very misleading.

In 1808, James Madison won his first term with 66.2% of the popular vote. The vote was Madison 95,643; Charles C. Pinckney 45,376; James Monroe 3,450.

But in 1812, Madison was re-elected with only 51.3% of the popular vote. He received 116,973; DeWitt Clinton received 106,513; Rufus King received 4,650. If the Electoral College had remained the same size in 1812 as it had been in 1808, then Madison would have received fewer electoral votes in 1812 than in 1808. However, the Electoral College grew between those two years, from 175 members in 1808 to 217 members in 1812, so even though Madison’s share of the electoral vote slipped, his number of electoral votes increased.

Also, in 1912, Woodrow Wilson won more electoral votes for his initial election than he won when he ran for re-election in 1916. He received 435 electoral votes in 1912 but only 277 in 1916.

Washington Post Story About Growing Libertarian Party Strength

Posted on by November 20, 2012
24

Aaron Blake and Sean Sullivan have this article about the Libertarian Party’s success in this month’s election, although the story ought to simply focus on the Libertarian Party. Instead it tries to focus on a perceived threat to the Republican Party, even though the article acknowledges that voters who vote Libertarian might vote Democratic instead of Republican if the Libertarian Party didn’t exist.

The story misses several key points. One is that Libertarian registration (in states in which voters register into parties on voter registration forms) has increased 20% nationwide in the last eight months. Another is that the Libertarian Party again polled over 1,000,000 votes for its U.S. House candidates, even though it had no nominees in California, which is usually the party’s best source of votes for U.S. House. Of course the party was kept off the ballot in California congressional races this year because of the top-two system. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

New York Times Editorial, Defending Free Speech for “Press” but not Other Corporations, Raises More Questions than it Answers

Posted on by November 20, 2012
18

This November 19 New York Times editorial attempts to explain why the Times feels that some corporations should be free to spend money discussing candidates for federal office, but other corporations should not be free to do that. But the obvious question not answered in the editorial is “Who or what is press?” The New York Times seems to feel that it there is a clear line between press corporations and other corporations, but that is no such clear line.

Scholars find that when the First Amendment was written, “press” didn’t mean a certain category of businesses; it meant anyone who disseminates information via the printed page. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.