Have you ever wanted to travel to all fifty states? Unless you're wealthy (or have plenty of opportunities to travel) this marvelous book will allow you to do so without leaving the comfort of your favorite armchair! Inspired by John Gunther's classic 1947 work, "Inside America", the "Book of America"'s two authors personally traveled to all fifty states in the late seventies and early eighties, interviewed and absorbed as much information and experiences as they could, and then produced this book. The result is a unique and insightful look at America in the eighties (and much of the information they provide is still relevant today). Yet this book is far more than a simple travelogue or list of facts. The authors cover - often in surprising detail - virtually every facet of life in all fifty states. The politics, regional differences, history, culture, geography, scenic spots, and more of every state are discussed. To cite just one example (or one state) - have you ever wanted a "bird's eye" tour of New York City's five boroughs? Then it's all here (all the ethnic groups, neighborhoods, the city's nightlife, etc.)- but so is a tour of Long Island's suburbs, the dairy country of upstate New York, the "Finger Lakes" region, the majestic Adirondack Mountains of the upstate region, and almost everything you'd need to know about the Empire State's people and places. You'll learn that New York City nearly always votes for Democrats, while the "upstate" farmers and suburbs vote Republican. Yet none of this ever gets boring, as the authors are witty and aren't afraid to poke holes or skewer sacred cows along the way: "Texas, that braggart of American states...etc." One of the author's interesting discoveries is that America's regional differences are still strong, despite the mobility of the American people (for proof of that, just look at the recent presidential election)! To be sure, some of their info is now dated, such as when they discuss the phenomenal popularity of the TV series "Dallas" overseas (that, of course, is in the chapter on Texas). But overall this is still a superb, one-of-a-kind look at America that you won't find anywhere else.

I read this book in college and loved it! I've wondered if there was ever going to be a follow-up. There needs to be another written just like it for today. Please write another one guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have you ever wanted to travel to all fifty states? Unless you're wealthy (or have a-lot of free time on your hands) this marvelous book will allow you to do so without ever leaving the comfort of your armchair. Inspired by John Gunther's classic 1947 work, "Inside America", this book's two authors personally traveled to all fifty states in the late seventies and early eighties. They traveled throughout each state and visited its' major cities, interviewed as many citizens, political and business leaders as they could, and then produced this book. The result is a unique and insightful look at America in the early 1980's (and much of the information they provide is still relevant today). Yet this book is far more than a simple travelogue or list of facts. The authors cover - and often in surprising detail - virtually every facet of life in all fifty states. The politics, regional differences, history, culture, geography, scenic spots, problems, and more info about every state are discussed. To cite just one example (or state): Have you ever wanted a "bird's eye" tour of New York City and its' boroughs? Then it's all here - the ethnic neighborhoods, the history of each borough, the sports teams, the city's politics, the nightclubs, etc. It's like visiting New York in your living room. Yet in the chapter on New York you'll also get a tour of the city's suburbs on Long Island; the dairy and farming country of the upstate, the majestic "Finger Lakes" region and the Adirondack Mountains in the upstate, and a completely seperate section on the state's "second-tier" cities from Albany to Rochester and Buffalo - all in a single engrossing chapter! You'll learn why New York City almost always votes Democratic, while upstate New York usually votes Republican. The book is rarely boring, as the authors are witty and not afraid to tease: "Texas, that braggart of American states...". One of the author's interesting discoveries is that America's regional differences are still strong and lively, despite the mobility of the American people (for proof of regional differences, just look at the 2000 presidential election)! To be sure, some of their info is now dated, such as when they discuss the phenomenal popularity of the TV show "Dallas" overseas (that, of course, is in the chapter on Texas). But overall this is still a superb, one-of-a-kind look at America that you won't find anywhere else. Highly Recommended!

As the world turns into a global entity, the United States has becomes a bona fide metropolitan nation. The 1990 census painted the picture of this accelerated pace of urbanization in striking numerical colors: Slightly more than 50 percent of us live in the 39 U.S. metropolitan areas with populations of more than a million people. By contrast,the mid-20th century census uncovered only 30 percent of the U.S. population living in 14 metro areas with million-plus populations.

But citistate realities don't just apply to the larger regions -- the New Yorks, Los Angeles, Chicagos, Bostons of America, the Berlins, Londons, Hong Kongs, Shanghais of the globe. All metropolitan regions face stiff competition and challenges. Include the United States' metro regions under 1 million people and the count exceeds 80 percent of the nation's people.

To put a human face on this fast-paced urbanization, three members of the Citistates Group -- Neal Peirce, Curtis Johnson and John Stuart Hall-- coined the new term "citistates." In their words, citistates are "not just the center city, but the entire metropolitan region - the 'real city' made up of center city, inner and outer suburbs, and rural hinterland so clearly and intimately interconnected in geography, environment, work force, and surely a shared economic and social future."

The transformation is apparent across the Atlantic, where Europeans have begun to describe their continent as a hodgepodge of powerful citistates -- from Manchester to Stuttgart, Lyon to London, Milan to Marseilles. Like U.S. citistates, these metropolitan regions are making economic and cultural transactions with little regard to their own nation-state governments.

The Citistates Group associates see a shift in thinking from the familiar governmental paradigm -- federal-state-local -- to one focused on function: global-regional-neighborhood.

* Global because critical issues have worldwide implications -- global warming, economic restructuring, rapid global market repercussions.

* Regional because the metropolitan areas, or citistates, share areawide transportation systems, media outlets, medical assistance, goods, services, even crime. Peirce argues that the success of the regional system -- on every measure from workforce preparedness to the quality of the infrastructure -- determines how competitive and successful the citistate will be for all its citizens in the long run.

* Neighborhood because it is on the personal, community level that escalating U.S. social problems can ultimately be dealt with.

Citistates includes six case studies based on Peirce Reports for the leading newspapers in Phoenix, Seattle, Baltimore, Dallas, St. Paul and Owensboro, Ky. These popularly written analyses examine each region's special problems and suggest potential solutions tailored to the local situation. The goal in each series is to identify ways out of a region's dilemmas by tapping civic energies -- forward-thinking talents and skills in business, civic, academic sectors -- to create a more sustainable citistate in the next century.

In his review of the book, George Knight, executive director of Neighborhood Reinvestment, took note of the role of neighborhoods in civic renewal. "Peirce gives full credit to community-based development organizations for revitalizing some of America's most devastated neighborhoods."

The book's wind-up chapter includes an 8-point formula for "citistate cohesiveness and strength." -- Craig Anthony Thomas, Senior Research Associate, The Citistates Group

This is the perfect book for anyone who has never quite understood how the electoral college works (or, even, why we still use it) in national elections for the President. It highlights the historical foundations for its formation, as well as specific, historical examples--where its existence has proven to be questionable (at best), in terms of electing the President of the U.S. This book's timeliness can be seen in the current presidential-election situation--which has called into question the electoral college's capability, in being able to elect "the people's choice" to the presidency.

I am writing based on the 1996 edition.

This is a book that focuses on the workings and potential problems of the Electoral College. There is a good deal of historical discussion, but the book is primarily concerned with the Electoral College of today. Much of this book is adapted from Pierce's The People's President (Simon and Schuster, 1968 & 1981, which I also recommend). In light of the recent election, this book is very relevant.

The authors strongly feel that the Electoral College should be abolished in favor of a direct popular vote. The authors stress the well-known criticisms of the Electoral College regarding wrong the "wrong winner", popular vote percentage distortion, faithless electors, and third-party shutouts.

The book especially stresses the potential for chaos in a three way race, opening with a fictional 1996 race that is ironic in light of recent history...

Bob Dole wins a popular plurality (barely), Bill Clinton wins an electoral plurality (barely), but Ross Perot carries enough states (including Texas) to deny anyone an electoral majority. Both parties persuade some Perot electors to defect - but not enough, so the Electoral College deadlocks and the vote goes to the House. The Republicans have a narrow majority in the new House - but not by states (it's one-state-one-vote) so the House deadlocks. The VP vote goes to the Senate, but the new Senate is 50-50 so it deadlocks too.

(Note: the authors maintain that the outgoing VP cannot cast the tie-breaking vote in such a case - an open question which would surely go to the Supreme Court.)

On Inauguration Day, there's still no President-elect or VP-elect, so House Speaker Newt Gingrich becomes Acting President. But it's STILL not over...

The House can keep voting until one of the three candidates carry 26 state delegations. And the Senate can keep voting until 51 Senators make Al Gore or Lamar Alexander (Dole' running mate) VP (and also Acting President if the House remains deadlocked). Acting President Gingrich must govern knowing that his stay in the White House can end at any time if either house so chooses...

In January 1999, the newly elected Congress finally selects the winner of the 1996 election.

The balance of the book is divided between historical narratives and mathematical analysis of how the electoral and popular votes diverge. I found the narratives very interesting, the analysis less so.

A chapter entitled "Recent Crisis Elections" discusses 1948, 1960, 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1992. I disagree with the title; the only crisis elections were 1800, 1824, 1876, and 2000. However, the chapter is quite interesting - 1948, 1960, and 1968 almost went to the House. Particularly notable are the Alabama 1960 vote (a hybrid slate of 6 unpledged and 5 Kennedy Democrats won - so what was Kennedy's real popular vote?), the Hawaii 1960 rival electors, and the 1976 election night (which dragged on until 3:30 AM and had a retraction - sound familiar?).

Other chapters discuss a variety of points:

Why was the Electoral College created and how has it evolved?

When did the "wrong winner" win? Almost win?

How are the electors chosen?

Can a state legislature appoint electors itself? (Yes. It was the rule in antebellum South Carolina and common nationwide until 1824.)

How often have electors been faithless?

What if the electoral votes are disputed?

What if a candidate dies before Election Day? (It has happened.) Before the electoral votes are cast? (It has happened.) Before they're formally counted? (Never happened.) Before Inauguaration Day? (It almost happened - to FDR in 1933.)

What if the election goes to the House?

This book contains a lot of information that should be more widely known, especially in light of the 2000 election. I would have appreciated more historical narratives. The well-known controversies of 1824 and 1888 and the crises of 1800 and 1876 are discussed, but could receive more treatment. If there is a 2004 edition, obviously the authors will have a lot to say about 1876 and 2000.

Some interesting elections which could have been discussed are:

1836: The Whigs run three regional candidates to throw the election into the House. They fail, but the VP race goes to the Senate because Virginia's 23 electors vote refuse to vote for victorious Democrat Van Buren's running mate, Richard Johnson - Johnson reportedly married one of his slaves!

1844: An abolitionist candidate tipped decisive New York, giving the election to proslavery expansionist James Polk over moderate Henry Clay. The annexation of Texas and the Mexican War ensued.

1860: Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in the South, but won a popular plurality and an electoral majority. This would have still happened if his three opponents united.

1864: No electors were appointed from the Confederate states, although Lincoln asserted that they remained in the Union in law. I believe Congress formally excluded the seceded states from the Electoral College. This would have been interesting precedent if Florida in 2000 ended up with no electors. Would Gore win 267-246 with 25 abstentions, or would it go to the House because 267 of 538 is not a majority?

1868, 1872: Some of the South had no electors due to Reconstruction. Ditto.

1880, 1884, 1888: A single close state (New York) tips the election each time. 1880's popular vote nationally was 10,000 out of 9 million, 1884 is remembered for the fateful "rum, Romanism, and rebellion" slur, and 1888 is remembered for the "wrong winner."

1896: The Democrats and Populists nominate William Jennings Bryan, but with separate running mates. Had he won the election, this would have been interesting, because his electors did not all vote for the same VP.

1916: No controversy, but the closest electoral vote (277-254) between 1876 and 2000. California's 13 votes decides - by 4,000 votes out of a million.

The book is fairly concise while still covering a lot of interesting ground. Recommended.

When I read this book in July of 1968 I became convinced that the popular vote should determine the election. I no longer believe this. If it did, the federal system which we live under would be seriously changed. Small states would lose importance, and campaigners would spend even more of their time in the areas where there are lots of people. It would constitute a drastic change in the system which has served us well for most of our history. If there should be a change, we should eliminate the possibility of "faithless electors" and in case of no majority we should let the House pick the President, instead of giving the House only one vote as is presently the case.

Neal Peirce's discussion of the workings of the Electoral College was one of the most important scholarly examinations ever undertaken. There is a wealth of detail in the book, and it is well written and organized.

Some of Peirce's assumptions should be reconsidered. He suggests that the Republicans miscounted the popular vote in the southern states in the contested 1876 election, when in fact few historians would accept that conclusion. (Can you imagine Eric Foner saying that?)

Peirce's conclusion that removing the Electoral College would solve the problems with electing the President presupposes that there are no contested elections. A close election like the Kennedy-Nixon race would hinge on minor counting of election officials (a swing of one vote per precinct in 1960 would have handed the vote to Nixon, even accepting the contested nature of the returns).

The direct election of the President may be a preferable system, but there has not been a proposal for reform which would remove all the possibilities for a contested election.