Tie goes to McCain?
Posted on 10/31/2004 8:38:00 PM PST by ClintonBeGone
Interested in becoming president this year? If so, hope for an electoral college tie. With an unlikely, but plausible, perfect tie -- 269 electoral votes for both George W. Bush and John Kerry -- anyone meeting the Constitutional qualifications for president could end up president. Here's how.
Most people know the electoral college, and not popular vote, decides presidential elections. Many people also know that if no one gets a majority of electoral college votes the Constitution directs the House of Representatives to choose the President. This has happened twice (not counting 1876, a technically different situation) -- in the strange tie of 1800 and the 4-way election of 1824. The contemporary prospects for a House election are slim. Only an electoral tie -- or a third party winning electors -- could produce it. However, a tie is plausible this year: if all states vote the same as 2000 except New Hampshire and Nevada, the electoral vote would be 269 to 269.
An electoral college tie would produce overwhelming media attention on the possibility of "faithless electors", who disregard the vote return in his/her state and pick whichever candidate he/she wishes. In 2000, such a move by three electors would have produced a Gore victory. Earlier this month, a Republican elector, Richie Rob, made rumblings that he might not elect Bush if the President wins West Virginia.
A more intriguing, and potentially more consequential, possibility is an elector "shedding" a vote to a 3rd candidate. In an election thrown to the House, the 12th amendment specifies to choose from the top three electoral vote recipients. In a tie, only Bush and Kerry will have electoral votes, Unless some elector decides to shed his vote, making the outcome 269-268-1. Why would an elector do this?
It's simple. Shedding a vote would still send the election to the House. Currently, the Republicans would handily win a vote between Bush and Kerry. Democratic electors thus have an incentive to get a third candidate on the House ballot -- particularly a centrist who could draw moderate Republicans into a coalition with the House Democrats to defeat Bush. To succeed, it would have to be a prominent moderate Republican, and it would have to be someone willing to attempt a revolt in the Republican party. It would almost have to be John McCain.
While McCain might reject this and throw his support behind Bush, he might seize the opportunity, much like Aaron Burr did in 1800. It would be his chance to reshape the GOP. He has never personally liked Bush. And lest we forget, it could make him president. Certainly there are House GOP members who would prefer a moderate Republican to Bush.
Bush Republicans would obviously try to prevent such a revolt. However, few GOP defectors would be needed. The 12th amendment also specifies that the House vote is by state delegations, not simple majority. To win, you must get the vote of 26 state delegations. Along strict partisan lines, there are 30 GOP delegations, 16 Democratic delegations (including Vermont's independent but left leaning Bernie Sanders), and 4 deadlocked delegations.
Imagine a three-way House choice between Bush, Kerry, and McCain. McCain could prevent Bush from gaining the required 26 states by deadlocking 5 states. Assuming full Democratic support for McCain, defection of less than a dozen key GOP members could deny Bush victory. After a first ballot impasse, it's anybody's game, but McCain, as the moderate of the three, would be a favorite to win a politically brokered deal.
But Republicans might act even earlier. Think back to the original "shedding" of an elector to McCain. Although a tie vote would be known in early November, the electors do not meet until December, giving them time to consider their options. The obvious Republican counter-attack would be to encourage multiple Republican electors to shed votes. Multiple electors shed toward either a left-winger (say, Howard Dean) or a right-winger (say, Tom DeLay), could keep a moderate, agreeable third candidate such as McCain out of the contest, making the House vote between Bush, Kerry, and a radical. The House GOP would hold together, and Bush would win handily.
But why would the Democratic electors allow this? They could plan to shed more electors towards McCain. A race to the bottom could then ensue, such that any radical combination of electoral votes, even scenarios where Bush or Kerry get few or no votes, could occur. Depending on what degree electors are aware of the possibilities and to what degree they coordinate their actions, almost any three candidate could end up in the House.
While farfetched, the idea of the perfect electoral tie and electoral shedding opens the frightening possibility of an American election in true disarray -- one in which anyone, announced candidate or not, could end up President. Even you.
Matt Glassman is a graduate student in Political Science at Yale University. (He is not related to TCS Founder and Host James K. Glassman.)
Did the author run out of things to write about?
This is as likely to happen as aliens landing on november 2nd and demanding a place on the ballot.
Only problem is it is almost impossibe for this result to happen based on the current electoral map. The odds are probably better for a metorite to hit a polling place then for this to happen.
It wouldn't work. We'd just get Lieberman on the ballet to split the DIMs the same way.
It's not as unlikely as you think. There are 10 real battleground states, and there are about 16 combinations in which there could be a tie, not including those possibilities if Maine or Colorado split E-Votes.
Arnold cannot be president without a constitutional amendment - he was born in Austria.
Tie goes to McCain?
This is as likely to happen as aliens landing on november 2nd and demanding a place on the ballot.
Already happened. John Kerry.
So Father, if you're on a ship & you cross the International Dateline...
Where do you people find this crap to post? That is the most ludicruous thing I have seen yet. You obvious do not understand the Republicans in the House of Representatives. McCain gave us CFR and if you think they would vote for him for Pres over Bush I have swamp land in AZ for sale!
Freaking unbelieveable to see this posted on FR!
McCain is popular with the media, but there are lots of House members who would not vote for him. Any house delegation that does not have a majority for a candidate will not have a vote cast in a round of voting. There would be lots of pressure to prevent more than one round of voting.
Find out what Glasman is drinking and order me a case.
Arnold is Constitutionally unable to serve in the Presidency.
Well, Arnold couldn't get it without a constitutional ammendment, and I'm wondering about the state constitutions. I believe some of them require the electors under law to give their electoral votes to the candidate who won the state. So, which states would be those in which they could 'change' their vote?
I think I got a "contact high" just reading this.
My God that reading all of that reminded me of this:
The Dread Pirate [R]oberts & [V]izzini have a battle of wits to decide who shall win the Princess, based on the old posioned goblet trick...
R: All right. Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right...and who is dead.
V: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
R:You've made your decision then?
V: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
R:Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
V: Yes, Australia. And you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
R: You're just stalling now.
V: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
R: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.
V: IT HAS WORKED! YOU'VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHERE THE POISON IS!
R: Then make your choice.
V: I will, and I choose-- What in the world can that be?
[Vizzini gestures up and away from the table. Roberts looks. Vizzini swaps the goblets]
R: What? Where? I don't see anything.
V: Well, I- I could have sworn I saw something. No matter.First, let's drink. Me from my glass, and you from yours. < they drink >
R: You guessed wrong.
V: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!! Ha ha ha--
;>) Let's make sure "W" wins by a LARGE margin on Tues and stay away from any of that.
The problem with that is they wouldn't take the bait, but we would.
Is there any prohibition in the 12th amemdment for someone casting an electoral vote for Arnold? I haven't read the exact text, but if its not there, you can read a prohibition into it.
Show me where in the 12th amendment he is prohibited from getting an electoral vote?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.