'Fraid not
Feb. 27th, 2008 11:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
libertangoMayor Mike Bloomberg of New York has an Op-Ed in the New York Times today. In it, he makes a statement that, while strictly true, isn't terribly likely:
"I believe... that an independent can win the presidency."
Here's why that's not well thought out, in a post I just made to the Times' web site:
*^*^*^*
The only way an independent -- presumably from a newer party -- can win the presidency is with a whole lot of backing from the House of Representatives.
This is strictly a question of mechanics. Presumably neither of the older parties is going to fade away overnight. That means the polling of the Electoral College would split three ways, and the most likely outcome would be no one candidate gaining the majority of electors needed to win.
Which would mean the election would go to the House. In a standard tactic of the Founders, if something doesn't work one way, try the complete opposite. In this instance, the Electoral College behaves like the House itself -- skewed towards states with large populations. But if the presidential election goes to the House, the House then acts like the Senate. Each state's delegation caucuses, and casts a single vote. The states with the smallest populations then provide the most bang for the buck.
It doesn't take all that many members of the House to win. One can have a majority of the delegations of the 26 smallest states by population with only about 160 members of the House.
But if this is all news to you, it shows how unserious and frivolous newer party candidacies so far have been. Not a single one has been launched with a full realization of the endgame, and with what it will take to win.
If you ever see a newer party starting to get members of Congress elected, you'll know they're serious about winning the presidency. If not, then not.
"I believe... that an independent can win the presidency."
Here's why that's not well thought out, in a post I just made to the Times' web site:
*^*^*^*
The only way an independent -- presumably from a newer party -- can win the presidency is with a whole lot of backing from the House of Representatives.
This is strictly a question of mechanics. Presumably neither of the older parties is going to fade away overnight. That means the polling of the Electoral College would split three ways, and the most likely outcome would be no one candidate gaining the majority of electors needed to win.
Which would mean the election would go to the House. In a standard tactic of the Founders, if something doesn't work one way, try the complete opposite. In this instance, the Electoral College behaves like the House itself -- skewed towards states with large populations. But if the presidential election goes to the House, the House then acts like the Senate. Each state's delegation caucuses, and casts a single vote. The states with the smallest populations then provide the most bang for the buck.
It doesn't take all that many members of the House to win. One can have a majority of the delegations of the 26 smallest states by population with only about 160 members of the House.
But if this is all news to you, it shows how unserious and frivolous newer party candidacies so far have been. Not a single one has been launched with a full realization of the endgame, and with what it will take to win.
If you ever see a newer party starting to get members of Congress elected, you'll know they're serious about winning the presidency. If not, then not.
