What if 2004 Splits the Electoral College 269-269 ?

[YellowDawgDemocrat]

Anybody know what the Constitution provides for in this scenario? Hey, it's unlikely, but possible.

[unblock]

1. u.s. house decides prez

and senate decides veep

[Clark4Prez]

3. That is the scariest concept ever

Geeze, we could end up saying, "Gosh, since President DeLay took office, I miss Bush."

[CTLawGuy]

4. no, according to the 12th amendment

they have to choose from the top three finishers in the election. They cant just elect DeLay.


OT: my 500th post!!

[jsw_81]

10. It is possible

If DeLay becomes Speaker before the election (it's a possibility), and if there's a 269-269 electoral tie that the House just can't resolve before 1/20/2005, Speaker DeLay (or Hastert) would become acting President.

[Hippo_Tron]

24. LOL that would make a great political cartoon

John: Hrmmm I sure hope that President Bush doesn't get re-elected, but what happens if we have a close race like last time and the electoral college ties?

Sam: Well the House of Representatives gets to decide.

John: Good, congress is smart enough not to elect somebody like Bush.

*John reads paper with headline "Bush not re-elected by House"

Sam: Hey John what's the matter, I thought you were happy that Bush didn't get re-elected.

John: Well, ever since President DeLay took office I kinda miss Bush.

[TheWebHead]

2. link explaining

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2000/10/23/tie.html

[Hippo_Tron]

26. I love how they thought Gore would win the electoral but loose the popular

And face a legitimacy crisis. Gee, that didn't seem to happen now did it.

[BootinUp]

5. It goes to the house, but I want to make another point

I have seen many posts where people base their "predictions" off of the electoral vote in 2000. I think it is a stretch to assume that the nation is going to vote the same +/- a little bit as they did in 2000. Generally I do not believe the September 11th attack changed life so much in America. But one place it has changed things is in politics. Especially Presidential politics. Americans a very sensitive to National Security now. Many Americans will support chimpy all the way and will not be swing votes as they may have been. The Republican party is going to run a campaign that focuses on anything good that has happended in the war on Terror. There is going to be ad after ad after ad about that talks about the "War".

Americans generally back the incumbent in these kind of times when there are troops at risk. I don't want to be too negative, but I give us a low probability in winning next year.

[isbister]

19. Re: It goes to the house, but I want to make another point

I believe there is a high degree of probablity that the election will be held under a very high Homeland Security alert... which may cause lower voter turnout and be beneficial to the party in power.

[jsw_81]

21. Yep

This is why Bush/Cheney wants us to constantly be at war. When we're at war (even if it's a phony "war on terra"), they can use the old "don't change horses in a time of war" argument plus they will undoubtedly utilize all their new security powers that previous administrations would have never dreamed of. If they prevail in '04, we'll hear the same old arguments when it's time to elect Cheney or Frist or whoever in '08 and '12 and '16, and sadly, most voters will probably buy it. We will literally be at war for the next ten years. Think that's a crazy prediction? Just wait and see.

[LTR]

29. The 'war' precedent

Never mind that the presidency has changed hands during WWII, Korea AND Vietnam.

Somebody better hammer this home.

[Brian_Expat]

6. It would be a true measure of how out-of-touch the GOP is. . .

If Bush loses the popular vote AGAIN, but Congress puts him back in. You think there's anger out there now? Watch out!

[BootinUp]

7. Well, not really

If they proceed according to the constitution then they win fair and square don't ya think?

[mermaid]

9. No

Because with all the illegal mid-decade Redistricting shenanigans in state after state, they have packed the House in their favor for years to come.

So it isn't fair and square.

[Brian_Expat]

16. And also, they cannot claim a mandate of any sort

If this was a legitimate pathway for them, they'd not have tried to get the SCOTUS to name Bush prez, but instead pushed for a vote in the House, where they would have selected Bush.

Then he would actually legitimately be prez in my eyes -- but he'd lack a popular mandate.

They figured that, by obscuring the results, they could claim Bush was "elected by the people." They want their cake and the ability to eat it too.

[mermaid]

8. I've Often Wondered The Same Thing...

The only solution I have been able to come up with, in my own mind, is that the winner of the popular vote would then become Pres...with the other guy becoming Vice Pres...and have a split Dem/Rep Administration.

By the way, can anyone come up with a plausible state-by-state red versus blue breakdown that yields 269-269?

Now, if you threw a third party in there, and no one got 270, because of the third-party guy...it would place the third-party guy as "kingmaker" as he would be in a position to deal his electors...this is what George Wallace tried to do in 1968.

[jsw_81]

11. No, the Republicans would take the presidency and vice presidency

If the House has to choose the presidency we'll have a strange situation where each state delegation votes as a block to select a president, with the winning candidate taking a majority of the states, not a majority of the House. Texas, for example, currently has a majority Democratic delegation, so we'd probably win that state even if our presidential candidate lost the Texas popular vote by a landslide. And Democratic-leaning states like Pennsylvania would see their delegations support the Republican candidate simply because they have a majority in the delegation even though we might have won the presidential contest there. It will be an utterly bizarre situation, but I've played with the various electoral vote calculators on the net and a 269-269 tie is a definite possibility.

[mermaid]

12. Actually, I Found A Plausible

way to a 269-269 final. And it involves the Reps sweeping the South, and the Heartland...no big surprises there. So this is a scenario that could ACTUALLY HAPPEN...

To the Blue Guys (the good guys)
AZ CA CT DC DE HI IL MA MD MI MN NJ NM NV NY OK PA RI VT WA WI WV

To the Red Guys (the bad guys)
AK AL AR CO FL GA IA ID IN KS KY LA ME MO MS MT NC ND NE NH OH OR SC SD TN TX UT VA WY

Like I say, this is plausible because it gives the Reps the stronghold of the South and the Heartland. What else would you expect of Southerners and farmers? Let's face it, they DO tend to hold more traditionally conservative values in those places.

It gives the Dems their traditional strongholds of the liberal northeast, with the exception of NH and ME...and NH often DOES go Rep...and ME can often be close. The other New England states are usually solidly Dem. NY and CA are usually solidly Dem. As is DC.

Anyway, there is a very plausible, and believable outcome that could result in 269-269.

Now, lets examine, seriously...
States we may need some work in to get for the Dems are: AZ NV OK PA WV - but they all won't take much work. They are usually traditionally pretty close.

States the red guys would need a little work in to get for themslves are: FL ME NH OR...these states can often traditionally be close, too.

The other states are usually lock for one party or the other, as best I can tell. But I say, if we could just nail Ohio...Man, we oughta win on that one!! It's doable, and we need to. We need to nail the usual suspects, plus OH and FL. If we can do that, we got us a winner.

Discussion?

[jsw_81]

13. Oklahoma going Democratic?

I don't see that happening anytime soon. The only way Oklahoma would go Democratic would be if Bush self-destructs and tries to literally kill Dean (or whoever) during the debate.

[mermaid]

14. Oklahoma Has A Democratic Governor.

It's where the Texas Legislature went the first time to avoid redistricting, because they knew the Democratic governor would NEVER co-operate with the Texas Troopers, to bring them back.

The fact of the Democratic Governor is why I think OK can go Democratic. But you do notice I included it in one of the states that would need work.

But I'll tell you what?? How about we switch, then. Give OK to the Red Guys...and give OR to the Blue Guys. That still makes 269-269.

Is that more plausible for you?

you'll notice I said OR was a state the Red Guys would have to work to get.

So we'll just switcheroo those two states, and we still have a pretty plausible 269-269 outcome.

Or do you disagree?

[jsw_81]

15. I agree totally

That's a very realistic scenario.

[mermaid]

17. Cool Then

So we agree it's a very plausible outcome, with the OK/OR switcheroo?

Here's one more possible, too

Taking that switcheroo as done...we could also do this switcheroo:

Give the Red Guys WV and AZ, give the Blue Guys MO and ME.

That is another switcheroo that would produce a 269-269 outcome. And, I think, very plausible.

In fact, it worries the hell out of me that just such a scenario would occur.

Given the current makeup of the House and Senate, you know they would declare Bush/Cheney winners, and the public outrage that has been boiling on our side would completely boil over!!

The only way to avoid such a boilover would be to name one Dem and one Rep as Pres and VP. If they failed to do that, I fear the country would, quite literally, tear itself apart!

[jsw_81]

20. There would be chaos on both sides

Imagine our nominee wins the popular vote (again) but "loses" the election in the House. And imagine our candidate winning the support of Texas thanks to the Lone Star state's majority Democratic delegation. it will be madness!

[AP]

18. This is why Texas redistricting was so important for THIS year.

This is why the Republicans couldn't wait.

They think there's a chance that there will be a tie electoral vote.

[hellhathnofury]

22. Would there be floor debate in both houses. Filibuster?

[Bucky]

23. It goes to House, BUT each state gets only ONE vote. (WY as big as CA)

If the House decides, each state gets one vote in the House of Representatives. It's not a one-man one-vote set up. It's one-state one-vote. Since smaller states tend to be Republican, the GOP has an automatic win there. They'd need 26 states where the majority of the state's delegation is Republican.

When this happened in 1800, there was one state that had an equal number of Federalists (favoring Adams then Burr) and Republicans (favoring Jefferson). That state ended up not casting a ballot in the election until the Burr weirdness took over.

Those states that would certainly have Republican majorities in their delegations are:

AL, AK, AZ, CO, FL, ID, IN,
IA, KA, KY, LA, MS, MT, NE,
NC, OH, OK, SC, TN, TX, UT, WY.

States with certain Democratic majorities would be:

CA, CT, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN,
NY, OR, RI, WV

All the other states could go either way, depending on the elections. So right off the bat Republicans would have 22 of the 26 votes needed, while Democrats could only count on 11. Nearly impossible odds for us to beat.

[ringmastery]

25. if it's 269-269

The candidate with the winning majority in the popular vote might persuade one of the electors to switch. It can happen.

What about bribes? Are there any rules against someone bribing an elector?

[Hippo_Tron]

27. What if Bush wins the house vote but the senate is dem controlled...

A Bush/(insert random dem here, say Kucinich) would be just plain hillarious.

[mouse7]

28. THEN I'M RICH!

I got 10 million to one odds on an electorial tie at the Ladbrooks Casino website. I had to put a buck on that.