What If The Election Is Tied?

[Dr Dave]

There is a chance--a chance!--that the Electoral College could be tied in this election. Do you know what would happen next? I didn't. But The Economist has worked it out. It's not too long, so here goes:

Back with Bush and, perhaps, Cheney

Jul 15th 2004 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition


Trust the constitution to say what happens if it's a dead-heat

ONE senior man at the Bush-Cheney team likes to say that this election could be even closer than the 2000 result, which hinged on those 537 contested votes in Florida. How? There could be a tie in the electoral college.

Remember that America does not have a nationwide vote, but 50 statewide ones. The winner of each state gets all of that state's votes in the electoral college (except in Maine and Nebraska, where votes can be split). The electoral college has 538 votes (the number of seats in the House of Representatives, plus 100 for the Senate plus three for Washington, DC) and it is not all that difficult to see how the two parties could end up with 269 votes apiece.

This could happen, for instance, if all the 17 main “swing states” were to change hands. Or, more simply, if the results of the 2000 race were repeated exactly, except that the Democrats won New Hampshire and West Virginia (in both of which John Kerry is leading).

What then? The constitution covers everything. If nobody has a majority, the president is chosen by the new House of Representatives from the top three vote-getters. But, the 12th amendment adds, “in choosing the president, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote.” In other words, each state delegation casts one ballot, whether it be California or Rhode Island.

This would make George Bush president. In the current Congress, Republicans are in the majority in 30 state delegations. It would take a landslide to change that, and if there were a landslide there would be no presidential tie.

Meanwhile, says the constitution, the new Senate elects the vice-president. Here things could get distinctly odd. What if the new Senate were also tied, which would be perfectly possible in a close-fought race? In that case, the old vice-president gets to break the tie in his capacity as leader of the old Senate. In other words, Dick Cheney, who is running as the new vice-president, would get to re-elect himself.

Except for one thing: the 12th amendment says that two-thirds of the Senate must be present to form a quorum. So a Democratic boycott could prevent the election of a vice-president.

That might be the least of America's worries. After one election decided by the Supreme Court, followed by another decided by Congress, voters might start demanding a system which gives them the final say. If one could be found.

-30-

This scenario, to me, is the strongest argument yet for direct popular election of the President.

[groover]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

This scenario, to me, is the strongest argument yet for direct popular election of the President.

"There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come."
-- Victor Hugo

Sounds like an idea whose time has come, Dr. Dave.

[kedoane]

If we had direct popular elections back in 2000, then Gore will be the president, not Bush.

[RBS]

I may be mistaken, but isn't the current House of Representatives the ones who choose the President in this situation? So it would make the ones who took over their positions in January irrelevant, at least for a couple of months.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by kedoane

If we had direct popular elections back in 2000, then Gore will be the president, not Bush.

We've gone through this before, but there's no way to know who would have won if we had had direct popular elections back in 2000. Why is this so difficult to understand?

For the 10th time, if the rule had been plurality vote in 2000, both Gore and Bush would have allocated resources differently.

[GoodSpeak]

What If The Election Is Tied?

Bush wins.



I mean...Jeb is still governor, isn't he?

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

What If The Election Is Tied?

Bush wins.



I mean...Jeb is still governor, isn't he?

Goody, I'll give you 10-1 odds that it won't be a tie. My 10 cds against your one. If I lose, I'll throw in a free cigar with the 10 cds.

Deal?

[Chaz Longue]

It saddens me to say it, but the election isn't going to be close. It's going to be a fairly solid win for Bush / Cheney.

Was it Jefferson who said "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just" ?

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

Goody, I'll give you 10-1 odds that it won't be a tie. My 10 cds against your one. If I lose, I'll throw in a free cigar with the 10 cds.

Deal?

No deal, my friend...I don't want to take CDs from you. The cigar, however, is negotiable


My scenario was a "what if" type of deal. I still hold out hope voters will actually wake up this time and turn out.


That NAACP snub ought to bring a few folks to the polls...I hope.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Chaz Longue

It saddens me to say it, but the election isn't going to be close. It's going to be a fairly solid win for Bush / Cheney.

Was it Jefferson who said "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just" ?

Chaz, I'm not talking about predicting the outcome. It may not be close. But if it is that close...the law doesn't offer very appetizing remedies. At least not to me it doesn't. And with Florida already in the headlines again, I don't think the country will stand for anything but a clear-cut result this time out.

[GoodSpeak]

Don't bet the ranch on it, Dave.

[JazzAt52ndStreet]

I say they make Rhode Island part of New York....that way there will only be 49 states.

-52nd

[Gary Sisco]

It's next to impossible, statistically, for a tie to happen.

Still neck and neck, though, according to all polls. The most recent I've seen, in today's NYT, shows no bounce for Kerry from adding Edwards (as predicted by moi because no one cares about it except for voting against Bush) and Bush losing some more over the war and Cheney's insistent running off at the mouth. So, still neck and neck and statistically too close to call either one a frontrunner, given the margin of error.

[Al in NYC]

As both Gordon and I (and a few others) have said here before, reform of the presidential election system to direct popular vote is a complete non-starter. There are far too many vested interests to overcome, particularly from the less populous states, so that even if it somehow got by the House it would never pass the Senate in a thousand years.

Interestingly, the same thing (voting by state in the House) would occur if neither candidate receives a majority of the Electoral College. With George Wallace winning several southern states, there was a distinct possibility of this happening in 1968.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by JazzAt52ndStreet

I say they make Rhode Island part of New York....that way there will only be 49 states.

-52nd

An excellent idea. The character of Rhode Island corruption is much closer to that of the Five Boroughs than it is to, say, Boston.

[willy]

Gary,

Speaking of polls are you familiar with the CNN/USA Today poll taken this past week? It was a poll taken of only likely North Carolina voters. 56% chose Bush/Cheney and 41% chose Kerry/Edwards. These are the people who know Edwards and they don't like him. Which poll to choose...I choose neither.

As I've said before the only poll that counts is the one taken on November 2nd. Everything else is meaningless bullshit.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Al in NYC

As both Gordon and I (and a few others) have said here before, reform of the presidential election system to direct popular vote is a complete non-starter. There are far too many vested interests to overcome, particularly from the less populous states, so that even if it somehow got by the House it would never pass the Senate in a thousand years.

Interestingly, the same thing (voting by state in the House) would occur if neither candidate receives a majority of the Electoral College. With George Wallace winning several southern states, there was a distinct possibility of this happening in 1968.

Vested interests? Tough. Screw Wyoming. That's where Cheney's from, anyway.

[Al in NYC]

I definitely agree from a political standpoint (which is where Gordon and I differ -- I believe he's actually IN FAVOR of the Electoral College). But from a practical standpoint, the fact that less populous states like Wyoming and Montana have 2 senators each just like New York and California (as a result of the historical compromise that also caused the imbalance in the Electoral College) means that you would never be able to get the necessary 2/3 majority of the Senate to amend the Constitution.

A more reachable goal, it seems to me, is Electoral College reform, since the states have control over how their EC votes are allocated. More states should do as Maine and Nebraska have done and make their electoral vote allocations proportional to the popular vote rather than winner-take-all.

This effort would, of course, run into many of the same objections as Constitutional abolition of the EC (for example, Wyoming is worth more to candidates if it's always 3 electoral votes instead of a potential 2-1 split). But the threshhold for change at the state level is much lower, more reachable, potentially more responsive to public pressure (if one can get American voters in 48 states to realize that under the present system their votes are completely negated unless they voted for the candidate who wins their state), and positive examples of reform already exist.

[clinthopson]

Common sense says that there should be a Constitutional amendment eliminating the Electoral College..

Of course the catch here is the common sense thingy.

Eliminating Gerrymandering wouldn't be a bad thing either.

Now can you imagine those pols voting that in?

[Darryl G. Thomas]

What I don't understand is gerrymandering was outlawed when it was based upon race, but the gerrymandering in Texas was okay because of what?

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

What I don't understand is gerrymandering was outlawed when it was based upon race, but the gerrymandering in Texas was okay because of what?

Gerrymandering is always acceptable as long as it has to do with arranging things so that a Representative can look forward to being re-elected every two years with token opposition. Or to put it more bluntly, so some cretin can have a lifetime pull on the teat of Federal power. This is Representative Democracy In Action! Yas! Yas!

[Al in NYC]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

What I don't understand is gerrymandering was outlawed when it was based upon race, but the gerrymandering in Texas was okay because of what?

This is truly one of the issues that makes my blood boil, and one that has not been dealt with very well by the media (I suspect because most reporters are too undereducated, ignorant, and lazy to understand it).

The Supreme's decision on racial gerrymandering (regarding a specific North Carolina district) was a very weird beast that really doesn't make much sense, to me at least. What they decided was that the gerrymandered district was illegal so long as the SOLE determinant in its formation was race.

So later on when the folks in N.C. came back with a very slightly modified version of the same district the courts approved it because it was done on a "political" basis (i.e. not to include more blacks, but to include more Democrats), which was the "normal" basis for redistricting.

Republican strategists spied the huge hole blown open by both the Democrats' push for more "majority minority" districts and this SC decision, and they've run right through it. They went out and hired folks to put together databases of block-by-block voter and demographic info and have used it in redistricting to isolate minorities in districts that are hugely Democratic leaning (as much as 90% or more). This, of course, leaves many more of the other districts with likely Republican majorities. It's a strategy that has been particularly sucessful in southern states.

Even if many of those new districts that end up horribly convoluted geographically are now apparently acceptible because the redistricting was done on a "political" basis. So they've basically played the Democrats at their own game and reinstituted a sort of Jim Crow politics (of course this is part of a general Republican strategy to isolate and diminish black voting strength, as can be seen in the companies employed to purge voter rolls and as was done most infamously in Florida).

The most insidious thing though (and what the fight was really over in Texas), is that another new Republican strategy is to trash 200 years of American political tradition and push to redistrict whenever and wherever they have a legislative advantage -- instead of waiting for the 10 year census cycle as has always been done in the past. This strategy did not pass muster with the courts in Colorado, but apparently was considered acceptible behavior in Texas. The Republicans are using these strategies to quickly and decisively solidify their domination in Congress by making sure that there are fewer and fewer districts that are likely to have actually competitive elections.