Day 29: New Hampshire

[MaC]

As of 2000:

As of 2004:

New Hampshire is the only state that voted in 2000 for Bush that did not vote for him in 2004.

Often described as the most, or one of the most libertarian states.  Although the party doesn't do well there, I think they vote the major party candidate who seems to be less of a big government politician.  The state itself has very low taxes, and is fairly limited in state government as to some other states.  Is it a swing state will it be trending GOP? Dem?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's definately trending Dem. Some have said Kerry only won it being from a neighobring state, but to that I say: see 1988.

The 1988 results astound me actually. It voted for Bush by a higher percentage than Idaho!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

New Hampshire is an... odd... state. Very, very odd. There seems to be a reaction from traditional areas against the incomers fleeing the Boston burbs; as a result it's traditional rural libertarianism has been dying for years; Carroll County (which hasn't voted for a Democrat since Wilson in 1912) almost flipped this year...

In many ways the town map says it all...

[Sam Spade]

New Hampshire was interesting in 2004 in that Bush, vis-a-vis 2000, lost a percentage of votes in rural New Hampshire that was not offset by gains he made in the Boston suburbs (Manchester).

Henceforth, he lost the state.  Somewhat different than trends over the rest of the nation, I would say, but New England in general fits the bill there.

[© tweed]

New Hampshire will be voting like Vermont in 10 years, barring a GOP "trend-breaker" (aka: McCain)

[Smash255]

Trending Dem due to social issues

[WalterMitty]

new hampshire is overrated as a 'libertarian' states.

sure, it is libertarian for a new england state, but it is no alaska.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Trending Dem due to social issues

Wrong

[nclib]

New Hampshire is one of very few states (if any others at all) where the rural areas (CD-2) are more Democratic than the more urbanized areas (CD-1).

Perhaps this is because CD-2 borders Vermont.

[Alcon]

Trending Dem due to social issues

Wrong

Well, this was an insightful exchange.

[MaC]

still, the state's fiscal policy is quite different from taxachusetts.  It's pretty free market, and they do have two Republican senators there.  However, people do seem to pay attention to socail issues over economics.

[ag]

still, the state's fiscal policy is quite different from taxachusetts.  It's pretty free market, and they do have two Republican senators there.  However, people do seem to pay attention to socail issues over economics.

Massachussets state taxes, measured as state revenue a proportion of state GDP, are actually quite average by US standards. In fact, I believe that once you include not just taxes but all sorts of fees (frequently, taxes by other name), Massachussets taxes might be lower as a proportion of state GDP than those in, say, the great state of Taxes. Be careful.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Republican House and Senate, 2 Republican US Senators, 2 Republican US House members, but it's definitely trending Democrat in Presidential elections, and has a Democratic governor.

[Smash255]

still, the state's fiscal policy is quite different from taxachusetts.  It's pretty free market, and they do have two Republican senators there.  However, people do seem to pay attention to socail issues over economics.

Massachussets state taxes, measured as state revenue a proportion of state GDP, are actually quite average by US standards. In fact, I believe that once you include not just taxes but all sorts of fees (frequently, taxes by other name), Massachussets taxes might be lower as a proportion of state GDP than those in, say, the great state of Taxes. Be careful.

Your right the whole Taxachussets label is a bit silly.  I remember seeing something that based off state taxes Massachussets is actually in the lower third or close to it (35th or 37th) based on state taxes.  Their overall tax base is a bit higher, but that is simply due to the fact Massachussets is one of the wealthiest states in the country

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Trending Dem due to social issues

Wrong

Well, this was an insightful exchange.

I apologise; I was tired and had a Philip moment

[Alcon]

Trending Dem due to social issues

Wrong

Well, this was an insightful exchange.

I apologise; I was tired and had a Philip moment

Ah, no problem.  But to be fair it probably saved what could have been three or four more multi-paragraph posts.  Gets the point across.  :)

[minionofmidas]

New Hampshire is an... odd... state. Very, very odd. There seems to be a reaction from traditional areas against the incomers fleeing the Boston burbs;

The funny part is that oldtimers and incomers are to be found on both sides of the partisan divide...and your statement is true nonetheless.

[minionofmidas]

To clarify - Connecticut River Valley; heavy influence of college towns, also been retreat of "liberal elites" for ages (Salinger lives there somewhere...so does John Irving...so does...oh well you get the point.) Nonetheless probably quite a few depressed old industrial towns in between. Votes Democratic. Coastal areas are probably similar.
Manchester/Nashua area. Fast growing, more residents born in Massachusetts than New Hampshire. Votes Republican.
And similarly there's more traditional areas voting Rep...and others voting Dem.

I should add that the state has one of the weirdest state houses in the Union, with just a couple thousand voters per constituency.

[Kevinstat]

I should add that the state has one of the weirdest state houses in the Union, with just a couple thousand voters per constituency.

A couple thosand voters per representative, yes (actually 3,089.465 (1,235,786/400) as of the 2000 census, and doubtless slightly more now, but I digress), but not per most constituencies.  Most state House districts in New Hampshire elect more than one representative, with 8 districts electing 8 or 9 representatives and 4 districts electing 10 or more representatives.  Two state House districts, one just east of Nashau and another just east of that, elect 13 representatives.  One factor contributing to these large districts is that towns and city wards cannot be divided between districts (that's probably why the largest districts are in the suburbs rather than in the major cities, although there is a 10-member district in Nashua and an 8-member district in Manchester), and the floterial districts that existed in the past (which allowed areas which together had enough people for a certain number of representatives but divided well in fractions where the denominator was one less than that number of representatives to share a representative while having their own representative as well - I don't think they were like the floterials that used to exist in southern states where some people would be represented only by a floterial representative the portion of whose district covered those people was far less than that area's rightful share of a representative, but I'm not sure that none of them were like those or kind of like them) were struck down in court during the initial reapportionment after the 2000 census.

Regardless of the reason, there are only 12 single-member state House districts in New Hampshire, so only 3% of New Hampshire's state Representatives represent districts with only around 3,000 people.  65% of New Hampshire's state Representatives are from districts with greater than 10,000 people.  I realize that may not be saying much for many of you here, but it shows that New Hampshire state House districts aren't quite as small as Lewis's post indicates.

Sincerely,

Kevin Lamoreau

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That sounds even crazier. In North Dakota each State House district elects 2 representatives and you have 2 votes, the top 2 win of course. Does that mean you have 13 votes in those districts with 13 reps? And imagine knowing all the candidates.

I like the Minnesota system. Each State Senate district in divided in two, each of those halves elects one State Rep. Simple and works best.

[minionofmidas]

Didn't know that; thanks Kevin.

[Kevinstat]

I'm pretty sure that in those 13-member districts each voter gets to vote for 13 candidates, and I know that all the candidates run against each other and the 13 candidates with the most votes win.  In the town of Salem, which is part of a 13-member house district, the total vote for state Representative in 2004 was 9.85 times the total vote for state Senator.  Considering that the totals for the Republican and Democratic candidates for the state House in Salem varied from 7,065 to 5,142 and 5,994 to 2,976 respectively (note that all 13 Republicans were elected, as the other town in that 13-representative district was heavily Republican and all Republican candidates did well enough in that town to overtake the strongest Democratic candidate), the fact that the total vote for state Representative in that town, divided by 13, was only 76% of the total vote for state Senator doesn't seem to suggest to me that voters were not allowed to cast 13 votes, as a lot of voters probably voted for far fewer than 13 candidates for state Representative.

Interestingly, in Idaho, where, like North Dakota, each state Senate district is a 2-member state House district, the two state Representatives in each district are elected in separate contests.  In each legislative district there is an election for State Senator, State Representative A and State Representative B.  See http://www.idsos.state.id.us/ELECT/RESULTS/2004/general/tot_leg.htm .  In one district the Republicans won seat B by 16 points but didn't even feild a candidate for seat A, where the Democratic nominee defeated the Constitution Party nominee nearly 3 to 1.  The Republicans won the state Senate seat by 6 1/2 points.  Washington has two different positions for its state Representatives in its 1-member Senate/2-member House districts as well.  All the other states where all house districts are two-member districts according to the National Conference of State Legislatures ( http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/cnstprst.htm ) elect their state Representatives the same way North Dakota does.  I don't know of any state that uses Single Non-Transferable Vote (candidates compete for n seats (n > 1) and the n candidates with the most votes win, but voters get to vote for only one candidate).  It's possible to limit the number of candidates a voter can vote for to less than the number of candidates to be elected but still greater than 1.  Some country does that for it's main legislative body, but I forget which one.  That might work well for New Hampshire, but I doubt such a change will be implemented as long as the Republicans control the Legislature.  It would also be pretty wierd unless all districts elected the same number of representatives, which obviously isn't the case in New Hampshire.  Otherwise you'd have to come up with some formula for the number of votes each voter was allowed to cast based on the number of seats up for election, and you still wouldn't have all voters being treated the same.

Sincerely,

Kevin Lamoreau

[Kevinstat]

I like the Minnesota system. Each State Senate district in divided in two, each of those halves elects one State Rep. Simple and works best.

Well not every state has enough state Senators such that twice that number would be a large enough even number that ties between parties would be very unlikely.  Of course there's always the chance of independents holding the ballance of power, but imagine if the partisan balance in the Minnesota state House was 67 Democrats, 66 Republicans and 1 moderate Independent.  The Democrats would have fully half the seats in the Legislature, so it's different than Independents holding the ballance of power and the situation the Republicans would be in, but would not have a majority.  I'm not saying that it couldn't work, but it would be pretty odd.  Has something like that ever happened in Minnesota, btw?

Wisconsin, Ohio, and I believe Alabama, and probably other states as well, which all have a 3 to 1 ratio of state Representatives to state Senators, divide each state Senate district into 3 state House districts.  A Constitutional ammendment resolution proposing to reduce the size of the legislature to 33-99 comes up in Maine nearly every legislative term, but never goes anywhere although it does always go out of committee as it only takes 1 vote other that "Ought Not to Pass" for a bill to go before each full legislative body.  (The "main" committees in the Maine Legislature are Joint Standing Committees with 3 Senators and 10 Representatives; the Standing commitees in each body are for things like certification of the Gubernatorial vote in the Senate and of the votes for the respective chamber, bills in the second reading, etc.)  (The very name of the negative vote on our committees suggests that the power of committees to kill votes is very limited, although committee chairmen/women may table bills while they seek to persuade recalcitrant members to come to their position.  They effectively kill a bill they don't like by delaying it until the Legislative term ends, however, although the presiding officers of the House/Senate may be able to effectively do that, I'm not sure.)  If I ever get elected to the Legislature (I haven't run yet but I know I will some day), I might propose a 41-123 Constitutional ammendment.  It probably wouldn't get through the Legislature, but it would have a better chance than 33-99 as the people who always oppose such a reduction on the grounds that some state House districts are already too large would be attracted by the reduction in size of the even larger (for most people, although I'm sure there are exceptions where people are on the outside of an urban Senate district but on the inside of a rural House district) Senate districts and the reduction in the size of the House would be less drastic.

Sincerely,

Kevin Lamoreau

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well not every state has enough state Senators such that twice that number would be a large enough even number that ties between parties would be very unlikely.  Of course there's always the chance of independents holding the ballance of power, but imagine if the partisan balance in the Minnesota state House was 67 Democrats, 66 Republicans and 1 moderate Independent.  The Democrats would have fully half the seats in the Legislature, so it's different than Independents holding the ballance of power and the situation the Republicans would be in, but would not have a majority.  I'm not saying that it couldn't work, but it would be pretty odd.  Has something like that ever happened in Minnesota, btw?

Hasn't yet, but it's not hard to see it happening. Republicans only have a 2 seat majority in the state House now, so the loss of one seat to an Independent or an incumbent leaving the party could create that.

[The Duke]

I get the feeling that New Hampshire is to Massachusetts what Connecticut is to New York.  A lot of people move there (From NY to CT and from MA to NH) when in their 40s and 50s, but still work in their old state and retain their old state's values and voting patterns.