What happens in case of an electoral college tie? I thought I knew, but this analysis contains some facts which surprised me, and may surprise you.
The Senate chooses the VP and the House chooses the President -- which means that the two may not be of the same party. The House chooses according to the "unit rule" -- meaning that each state delegation gets but one vote. California = Delaware. Will Representatives vote for their party's candidate, or will they vote as their state voted? There could well be a conflict...
8 comments:
Ha! I wondered about that. A few weeks ago I was playing around with an interactive EC map and was just instinctively calling states as I thought they would go. The number I came up with? 269-269. I coudn't believe it! It would be WILD if that happened and then the Senate chose Joe Biden while the House John McCain. (You know there are enough blue dogs and Bush dogs to do it, too) Everyone would miss out on identity politics after all this shit this year. I'm almost cynical enough to think it could happen. Crazy.
Well, anna, I could live with that outcome. Of the four, I would prefer Biden to be president -- only he seems truly qualified to meet the challenges ahead. But there's no way to bring that about.
(Jen, on the other hand, despises Biden.)
That is why I was so furious at Michael Moore for peddling the lie Al Gore "wimped" out in 2000. Gore couldn't do anything about it. The result would have been the same.
Not only did the House not have the votes to put Gore in, but because there was a tie in the Senate, Gore would have been put in the position of having to select a VP. He would have had to step aside because of conflict of interest. Not only that, but Joe Lieberman would have had to step aside, too, and therefore the Republicans would have had Cheney anyway.
People have twisted election 2000 and Gore's "inaction" when in fact he could do nothing about the outcome.
This answers a lingering question I had left over from the haze of the two weeks of 24-7 volunteering just before the '04 "election." Somewhere in the middle of that last fortnight, someone in my campaign office mentioned the possibility of an EC tie, and a worst-case scenario outcome in which we might wind up with a Bush/Edwards White House. I was so tired by that point I never bothered to check out that person's reasoning.
McCain/Biden.
I could live with that.
Hmmm. That rule would seem to favor the republicans, if each state only gets one vote. Think about it - there are far more red states than blue states. Most red states, though, have fewer electoral votes than blue states, which is why it doesn't require a democrat to win as many to win an election. That would favor McCain in a tie.
I despise Biden too, FTR. And I could not live with that outcome, and I don't thank many other Americans, especially Americans inspired by the identity politics this year, could live with it.
But I wonder what would happen if it did? I would bet that a majority of blacks and women would, right or wrong, assume it was manufactured to keep their people out. Might they then band together and create a viable 3rd party option? Fantasy, I know, but girl can dream, as long as we're nightmare-scenario-izing. Heh.
Joe,
I would like to hear your views on the most appropriate voting reforms, whether they be general population vote, run-off voting, or a contiuation of the status quo. Personally, while the mathematic specifics of run-off voting have been known to confuse me, I suspect this is the reason it's doomed. I know I could understand it given proper education; how much more convoluted than the electoral college and the mish-mash of caucuses and primaries? But at any rate, I'd still be curious to hear your opinion.
Re: Susan and her Al Gore comments: My issue with Gore's wandering through the electoral wilderness in 2000 is more with his failure to take a principled stand, meaning seeking a complete re-count of all of Florida which would have produced an electoral victory and instead seeking only particular districts which his campaign, with his at least tacit approval, deemed the most beneficial as a tactic to attain victory. This coupled with monstrous voter irregularities and/or suppression (as was being published by Greg Palast in Britain during the re-count) which were never mentioned domestically, decisively make the loser. If he had in fact began making a tireless case for vote fraud upon the foundation of Palast's reporting during the onset and interim of the tie & recount process, he would have had much more manuevering room if it still ended in a Senate confirmation. What's more, he would have highlighted a failed (and continually, worsening, failure) function of our democracy which would have educated the public in the fragility of our democratic process. In this, even in failure, he could have accomplished a civil service which would have served our nation well. Sadly, I suspect that Al Gore rediscovered the strength of his convictions only after he underwent Election 2000, and it may be revealing that as a result, he seems to have lost any interest in politics outside of occasional speaking rolls.
After writing this out, I'm starting to wonder what if any significance there is to the fact that I respected the 2000 McCain much more than his 2008 model, and I respected the 2000 Gore much less than his 2000... upgrade?
Go figure that the people who we really want to vote for, and can actually WIN, are precisely the people who don't run. Isn't there a quote about that from Mark Twain?
Not only Gore in 2000, but as Joe has pointed out - Powell in 2000. To this day, even after the UN speech for which I do hold a grudge, I do not believe that he ever would have acted that way had he been his own chief executive.
Our best chances for survival and even, possibly, prosperity are, I can only assume, so repulsed by the corridors of power that they cannot bring themselves to rule them.
Gore DID take a principled stand. For crying out loud, what did you really think he could DO? It was RIGGED, period.
I get disgusted with people who blame the Democrats for the Republicans' wrongdoing.
Post a Comment