To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

List of special elections to the United States House of Representatives in New York

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a list of special elections held in the congressional districts in the State of New York to fill vacancies which were caused either by the resignation or death of representatives-elect before their term began, or by the resignation or death of the incumbent representatives.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    81 490
    6 836 750
    3 514 654
    1 966 164
    1 030
  • ✪ Could Trump win under a Proportional System?
  • ✪ American Empire
  • ✪ The Constitution, the Articles, and Federalism: Crash Course US History #8
  • ✪ American Imperialism: Crash Course US History #28
  • ✪ HLS in the World | HLS in the House

Transcription

The political system of the United States of America has resulted in, effectively, a two party system. This is a natural occurrence in a first passed the post system where each candidate stands in a single seat constituency and the candidate with the most votes wins the seat outright. But this can lead to an assembly that doesn’t reflect the voter's overall preferences particularly well and so had led some to suggest that the system should be changed, to a proportional system. So how would American politics look under a proportional system, time for a thought experiment. The Dutch offer an example of such a system. The Netherlands House of Representatives, the Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, is elected based on an open list. Voters give their vote to a candidate on the list; but what’s important first is what party that candidate represents. The Tweede Kamer has 150 seats, and under the Dutch system a seat is awarded to a party for every one hundred and fiftieth of the popular vote. Inevitably this will not lead to every seat filled, so the remaining seats are awarded awarded based on the highest remainder. There is one small caveat in the Dutch system, that we won’t be applying here with our overview analysis, but its worth mentioning, any individual who gains one quarter of the threshold in votes in their own right is considered elected, jumping the list put forward by their party and resulting in the presence of independent members. Applying this system of proportional representation to American politics will require some assumptions. The third most popular party in America is Libertarian Party which received just received just 1.2% of the popular vote for the House of Representatives in 2014; compare this with the United Kingdom’s 2015 election where their third largest party UKIP received 12.6% of the popular vote; this isn’t going to be as straightforward as my UK House of Commons under MMP scenario. So in our analysis we’re going to have to break up the two big players of American Politics. However, we still want to take a data driven approach so to break up the Democrat and Republican votes we’re going to look at the how each of the factions within each party performed in this year’s presidential primary campaign. I say ‘we’re’ going to do this because I’ve asked Will the Political Junkie to come and provide us with some numbers. For the Democrats; we’ll split off Sanders to form his own party, Bernie Sanders’s Progressive Coalition, and he’ll take his 12 million primary voters with him, that leaves Democrats under Clinton with her 15.8 million voters. On the Republican side; Trump becomes leader of the Make America Great Again Party with 13.3 million votes, Ted Cruz is our banner holder for the Tea Party, bringing in 7.6 million votes; and the establishment Republicans are represented by Kasich and Rubio with just shy of 4.2 and 3.5 million votes respectively giving us 7.6 Republican voters. For the minor parties we will bring in the Libertarians and the Greens, however, the turnout for their Primaries was extremely low and so rather than base their votes on the primaries we’re going to set their percentages based on the Polling average for each party, so 8% of the vote will go to the Libertarians and 3.1% of the vote to the Greens. Those percentages will result in just over 5 million and just under 2 million votes for the Libertarian’s and the Green’s Respectively; and a new total vote of 63,463,960 votes. This gives us a threshold of 145,895 to win a seat in the 435 seat United States House of Representatives. This threshold results in: - 13 seats for the Greens - 82 seats for Bernie Sanders’s Progressive Coalition - 108 seats for the Democratic Party - 34 seats for the Libertarians - 52 seats for the Republicans - and the same for the Tea Party - And Trumps Make America Great Again Party will come in with 91 seats With three seats yet to be allocated, these are allocated to the parties with the largest remainder, giving an extra seat to the Libertarians, Greens, and Progressives and bringing our total to 435. Obviously, no party has gained an outright majority and so a coalition is required. Furthermore a coalition of either our Republican or Democratic derived party’s falls short of being able to form a government. So with this scenario, the Libertarians find themselves in a position of Kingmaker, able to choose between supporting a right wing Trump lead coalition with the Republicans and Tea Party or a left leaning Clinton lead coalition including at least the Progressives and possibility also the Greens in order to keep them friendly for future elections. The Libertarians could use their position as kingmaker to gain significant concessions from whoever they form a government with, however, with great power comes great responsibility and if the nation were to return to the polls they may well punish the kingmakers for their failure to make a king. An alternative would be for the now more moderate Republican party to support the Democrats and Progressives in forming a center based government, but given how quickly house republicans have come to support Trump I wouldn't hold your breath on this one. And the Libertarians are historically, an offshoot from the Republican Party. So perhaps the safe money would be on a Trump Primeministership; leading a coalition of Make America Great Again Party working with the Rupublicans, the Tea Party, and the Libertarians, with Hillary Clinton leading the opposition. One advantage of this type of proportional system is the removal, or at least limiting, of the spoiler effect. While under the de facto two party system of first past the post a third party candidate has the effect of diluting the votes from their ideologically closest major party, thereby increasing the chance of an ideologically opposing party winning the seat. Therefor, Voting for a third party candidate can actually work against voters best interests. The low one seat threshold of the Dutch system applied here minimises these effects, as these smaller parties gain representation and can, in a coalition use their votes to support an allied major party. But, over the longer term, would proportional representation change American politics for the better? Well to go deeper into that - I’ll hand back over to the Political Junkie Will … Have you ever noticed how substanceless our national debate can be? You have two parties whose task it is to scare you away from the other. If we had three, four, five legitimate parties, we could expect that while the media would continue to focus on the dramatic, the shocking, the horse race, the fights - that they would inevitably be also hooked into exposing their audience to more than two ping-pong parties. Those other parties would be involved in the fight too. Heck, in a proportional system, they might even win that fight. If democracy is about an exchange of ideas, then we should relish in the idea that a multi-party system could bring more ideological diversity; where smaller parties could form, run on a level-playing field, participate in coalition- ultimately form governments. But is this too idealistic? The major flaw of the American electoral system is that it inevitably leads to two major parties; new movements are either resigned to obscurity or absorbed under the umbrella of one of the bigger parties. But this phenomenon doesn’t just exist in our system. In almost every country with democracy, you’ll find two major parties, who almost without exception, hold power in the national government. Smaller parties aren’t absorbed into the bigger party like in the US; they’re absorbed into the bigger party’s governing coalition. Perhaps human beings simple can’t handle more than two choices. Despite what your civics teacher, your poli sci prof, or your cynical political activist friend said: is a proportional system really worth fighting for if the outcome is all the same? Thanks Will, there are obviously a lot of assumptions in this analysis, so in the comments below let us know where you think we went wrong, if you think proportional representation would be good for American Politics, and who you think would win under a proportional system. And once you’ve answered that make sure to check out Political Junkie, appropriately his latest video is about the spoiler effect, and its role the year 2000 presidential race and the delegates from Florida.

List

Con-
gress
District Vacator Election
date
Successor Took seat
2nd New York 1st James Townsend (F) (died) April 26 to 28, 1791 Thomas Tredwell (D-R) October 24, 1791
6th New York 1st Jonathan N. Havens (D-R) (died) December 1799 John Smith (D-R) February 27, 1800
7th New York 5th Thomas Tillotson (D-R) (res.) October 1801 Theodorus Bailey (D-R) December 7, 1801
New York 6th John Bird (F) (res.) John P. Van Ness (D-R)
8th New York 7th John Cantine (D-R) (res.) April 26 to 28, 1803 Josiah Hasbrouck (D-R) October 17, 1803
New York 6th Isaac Bloom (D-R) (died) September 1803 Daniel C. Verplanck (D-R)
New York 1st John Smith (D-R) (el. US Sen.) April 24 to 26, 1804 Samuel Riker (D-R) November 5, 1804
New York 3rd Samuel L. Mitchill (D-R) (el. US Sen.) December 1804? George Clinton, Jr. (D-R) February 14, 1805
9th New York 2nd
New York 3rd[1]
Daniel D. Tompkins (D-R) (res.) October 1804 Gurdon S. Mumford (D-R) March 4, 1805[2]
Samuel L. Mitchill (D-R) (el. US Sen.) December 1804? George Clinton, Jr. (D-R) March 4, 1805[3]
10th New York 12th David Thomas (D-R) (res.) April 26 to 28, 1808 Nathan Wilson (D-R) November 7, 1808
11th New York 2nd William Denning (D-R) (res.) April 24 to 26, 1810 Samuel L. Mitchill (D-R) December 4, 1810
12th New York 6th Robert Le Roy Livingston (F) (res.) December 15 to 17, 1812 Thomas P. Grosvenor (F) January 29, 1813
13th New York 15th William Dowse (F] (died) April 27 to 29, 1813 John M. Bowers (F) June 21, 1813[4]
Isaac Williams, Jr. (D-R) January 24, 1814[5]
New York 2nd Egbert Benson (F) (res.) December 28 to 30, 1813 William Irving (D-R) January 22, 1814
14th New York 6th Jonathan Fisk (D-R) (res.) April 25 to 27, 1815 James W. Wilkin (D-R) December 4, 1815
New York 12th Benjamin Pond (D-R) (died) Asa Adgate (D-R) December 7, 1815
New York 21st Peter B. Porter (D-R) (res.) April 23 to 25, 1816 Archibald S. Clarke (D-R) December 2, 1816
New York 20th Enos T. Throop (D-R) (res.) September 1816 Daniel Avery (D-R) December 3, 1816
15th New York 4th Henry B. Lee (D-R) (died) April 28 to 30, 1817 James Tallmadge, Jr. (D-R) December 1, 1817
17th New York 6th Selah Tuthill (D-R) (died) November 6 to 8, 1821 Charles Borland, Jr. (D-R) December 3, 1821
New York 9th Solomon Van Rensselaer (F) (res.) February 25 to 27, 1822 Stephen Van Rensselaer (F) March 12, 1822
18th New York 28th William B. Rochester (D-R) (res.) 1823 William Woods (D-R) December 1, 1823
20th New York 29th David E. Evans (J) (res.) November 5 to 7, 1827 Phineas L. Tracy (A) December 3, 1827
20th New York 5th Thomas J. Oakley (J) (res.) November 3 to 5, 1828 Thomas Taber II (J) December 1, 1828
District Con-
gress
Date Vacator Successor
New York 6th 21st December 6, 1830 Hector Craig (D) Samuel W. Eager (NR)
New York 20th 21st December 6, 1830 Silas Wright (NR) Jonah Sanford (D)
New York 3rd 23rd December 1, 1834 Cornelius V. Lawrence (D) John J. Morgan (D)
New York 3rd 23rd December 1, 1834 Dudley Selden (D) Charles G. Ferris (D)
New York 3rd 24th December 7, 1835 Campbell P. White (D) Gideon Lee (D)
New York 17th 24th December 5, 1836 Samuel Beardsley (D) Rutger B. Miller (D)
New York 30th 24th December 6, 1836 Philo C. Fuller (NR) John Young (NR)
New York 22nd 25th December 3, 1838 Andrew D. W. Bruyn (D) Cyrus Beers (D)
New York 29th 25th December 3, 1838 William Patterson (W) Harvey Putnam (W)
New York 11th 26th December 7, 1840 Anson Brown (W) Nicholas B. Doe (W)
New York 26th 27th May 31, 1841 Francis Granger (W) John Greig (W)
New York 20th 28th December 2, 1844 Samuel Beardsley (D) Levi D. Carpenter (D)
New York 12th 29th December 7, 1846 Richard P. Herrick (W) Thomas C. Ripley (W)
New York 6th 30th November 7, 1848 David S. Jackson (D) Horace Greeley (W)
New York 27th 30th December 4, 1848 John M. Holley (W) Esbon Blackmar (W)
New York 12th 33rd December 4, 1854 Gilbert Dean (D) Isaac Teller (W)
New York 29th 33rd December 5, 1853 Azariah Boody (W) Davis Carpenter (W)
New York 22nd 33rd December 4, 1854 Gerrit Smith (FS) Henry C. Goodwin (W)
New York 4th 35th January 17, 1859 John Kelly (D) Thomas J. Barr (D)
New York 31st 36th December 5, 1860 Silas M. Burroughs (R) Edwin R. Reynolds (R)
New York 14th 38th December 7, 1863 Erastus Corning (D) John V. L. Pruyn (D)
New York 1st 38th December 5, 1864 Henry G. Stebbins (D) Dwight Townsend (D)
New York 16th 39th December 3, 1866 Orlando Kellogg (D) Robert S. Hale (D)
New York 3rd 39th December 4, 1866 James Humphrey (R) John W. Hunter (D)
New York 21st 40th November 30, 1867 Roscoe Conkling (R) Alexander H. Bailey (R)
New York 28th 41st December 6, 1870 Noah Davis (R) Charles H. Holmes (R)
New York 6th 43rd November 4, 1873 James Brooks (D) Samuel S. Cox (D)
New York 3rd 43rd November 3, 1874 Stewart L. Woodford (R) Simeon B. Chittenden (R)
New York 9th 43rd December 7, 1874 David B. Mellish (R) Richard Schell (D)
New York 33rd 44th December 6, 1875 Augustus F. Allen (R) Nelson I. Norton (R)
New York 7th 44th January 11, 1877 Smith Ely, Jr. (D) David Dudley Field (D)
New York 16th 45th December 2, 1878 Terence J. Quinn (D) John M. Bailey (R)
New York 12th 46th December 1, 1879 Alexander Smith (D) Waldo Hutchins (D)
New York 32nd 46th December 6, 1880 Ray V. Pierce (R) Jonathan Scoville (D)
New York 11th 47th December 5, 1881 Levi P. Morton (R) Roswell P. Flower (D)
New York 22nd 47th December 5, 1881 Warner Miller (R) Charles R. Skinner (R)
New York 27th 47th December 5, 1881 Elbridge G. Lapham (R) James W. Wadsworth (R)
New York 8th 49th December 7, 1885 Samuel S. Cox (D) Timothy J. Campbell (D)
New York 9th 49th December 6, 1886 Joseph Pulitzer (D) Samuel S. Cox (D)
New York 15th 49th December 6, 1886 Lewis Beach (D) Henry Bacon (D)
New York 19th 50th December 5, 1887 Nicholas T. Kane (D) Charles Tracey (D)
New York 19th 50th December 5, 1887 Frank Hiscock (R) James J. Belden (R)
New York 6th 51st November 30, 1889 Frank T. Fitzgerald (D) Charles H. Turner (D)
New York 9th 51st December 2, 1889 Samuel S. Cox (D) Amos J. Cummings (D)
New York 27th 51st December 2, 1889 Newton W. Nutting (R) Sereno E. Payne (R)
New York 24th 51st December 1, 1890 David Wilber (R) John S. Pindar (D)
New York 2nd 52nd December 7, 1891 David A. Boody (D) Alfred C. Chapin (D)
New York 10th 52nd December 7, 1891 Francis B. Spinola (D) W. Bourke Cockran (D)
New York 12th 52nd December 7, 1891 Roswell P. Flower (D) Joseph J. Little (D)
New York 22nd 52nd December 7, 1891 Leslie W. Russell (R) N. Martin Curtis (R)
New York 14th 53rd February 14, 1894 John R. Fellows (D) Lemuel E. Quigg (R)
New York 15th 53rd February 14, 1894 Ashbel P. Fitch (D) Isidor Straus (D)
New York 10th 54th December 2, 1895 Andrew J. Campbell (R) Amos J. Cummings (D)
New York 3rd 55th December 6, 1897 Francis H. Wilson (R) Edmund H. Driggs (D)
New York 34th 56th December 4, 1899 Warren B. Hooker (R) Edward B. Vreeland (R)
New York 2nd 74th November 5, 1935 William Brunner (D) William B. Barry (D)
New York 22nd 74th November 5, 1935 Anthony J. Griffin (D) Edward W. Curley (D)
New York 4th 78th June 6, 1944 Thomas H. Cullen (D) John J. Rooney (D)
New York 5th 82nd February 19, 1952 T. Vincent Quinn (D) Robert T. Ross (R)
New York 6th 87th February 20, 1962 Lester Holtzman (D) Benjamin S. Rosenthal (D)
New York 39th 94th March 2, 1976 James F. Hastings (R) Stanley N. Lundine (D)
New York 18th 95th February 14, 1978 Edward I. Koch (D) S. William Green (R)
New York 21st 95th February 14, 1978 Herman Badillo (D) Robert Garcia (D)
New York 7th 98th March 1, 1983 Benjamin S. Rosenthal (D) Gary L. Ackerman (D)
New York 6th 99th July 10, 1986 Joseph P. Addabbo (D) Alton R. Waldon, Jr. (D)
New York 14th 101st March 20, 1990 Guy Molinari (R) Susan Molinari (R)
New York 18th 101st March 20, 1990 Robert Garcia (D) Jose Serrano (D)
New York 17th 102nd November 3, 1992 Ted Weiss (D) Jerrold Nadler (D)
New York 13th 105th November 4, 1997 Susan Molinari (R) Vito Fossella (R)
New York 6th 105th February 3, 1998 Floyd Flake (D) Gregory W. Meeks (D)
New York 20th 111th March 31, 2009 Kirsten Gillibrand (D) Scott Murphy (D)
New York 23rd 111th November 3, 2009 John M. McHugh (R) Bill Owens (D)
New York 29th 111th November 2, 2010 Eric Massa (D) Tom Reed (R)
New York 26th 112th May 24, 2011 Chris Lee (R) Kathy Hochul (D)
New York 9th 112th September 13, 2011 Anthony Weiner (D) Bob Turner (R)
New York 11th 113th May 5, 2015 Michael Grimm (D) Dan Donovan (R)

Notes

  1. ^ At this time, in the 2nd and the 3rd District 2 congressmen were elected on a general ticket.
  2. ^ Tompkins had been elected in April, and resigned in July 1804. This time the special election was held before the congressional term began, thus Mumford held office during the entire legal term.
  3. ^ Mitchill had been re-elected in April, and resigned in November 1804. A special election was held in December 1804 or January 1805 to fill both vacancies, the remainder of Mitchill's term in the 8th Congress and the full term in the 9th Congress. Clinton took the seat in the 8th Congress, and held office during the entire legal term of the 9th Congress.
  4. ^ Bowers was declared elected, and took the seat during the first session of the 13th Congress
  5. ^ Williams, Jr., contested the election of Bowers, and was declared entitled to the seat at the beginning of the second session of the 13th Congress

See also

This page was last edited on 23 March 2019, at 01:05
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.