What if this happens in Nov 2004...???
Fit to Be Tied
New York Times | August 11, 2004 | ROBERT BENNETT
Chicago Almost since its inception more than 200 years ago, the Electoral College has had its critics. Most of the contemporary objections are structural: because the college is apportioned on a state-by-state basis, with most states then choosing their electors through a winner-take-all popular election, the system could lead to what is known as a "minority president" - as it did four years ago, when George W. Bush lost the popular vote but still won the presidency.
But this system has many defenders, who point out that the college retains an important role for the states. A more serious flaw is a more simple one: because it has 538 members - one for each senator and member of the House of Representatives, plus three for the District of Columbia - the Electoral College invites stalemate. We came perilously close to a tie in the 2000 election, when 266 electors voted for Vice President Al Gore and 271 for Gov. George W. Bush (one elector pledged to Mr. Gore cast a blank ballot).
Can we head off the possibility of a tie? The answer is yes - but the only way to do so short of a constitutional amendment is to add an odd number of seats to the House. If the size of the House were increased by one, for instance, there would be 539 members of the college, and much less chance of a tie.
A tie in the Electoral College could be disastrous - because in that case, the House itself chooses the president, and in the House ferocious bargaining might well overwhelm the process. The presidency, after all, is a very big prize, and the House's procedure creates fertile ground for unseemly bargains.
Under the House procedures, each state gets one vote, and a majority of 26 states is required to select the president. The prospect of a tie bedevils this process as well. The states could break 25 to 25, of course, but a more serious possibility is that states with even numbers of representatives might be unable to cast a vote because of a tie in their delegation. There are now 17 states with an even number of House members.
Some members might break party ranks to vote with the winner of the popular vote in their states or districts. That could end ties or create them. More likely, perhaps, is that partisanship would dominate the House voting. At present there are four states with even numbers of Republicans and Democrats in their delegations. If those states were required to abstain, at least initially the House might be unable to choose.
Paralysis would be unlikely if the House vote were held tomorrow, for the Republicans control 29 delegations. There is, however, no reason to think that one party will routinely control a majority of delegations; even when one party has decisive control of the House, it is entirely possible that neither party would have a majority of delegations. In 11 of those 29 delegations, for example, the Republican margin is one vote.
Any standoff would probably not last, given the political costs of stalemate. But the price exacted could be enormous. Who knows what a lone representative, or a few united by a favored cause, might extract from a presidential candidate in return for a defection from party ranks?
Increasing the size of the college will not eliminate the possibility of recourse to the House. There could, for instance, be an abstention, as there was in 2000. But the size of the House is the only component of the Electoral College that can be changed without a constitutional amendment, and the relatively modest step of adding a single seat to the House would greatly reduce the chances of a tie.
An increase in the number of representatives will not come easily. The House has been the same size for almost a century, and even raising the possibility of a small increase would surely tempt states that covet larger delegations to push for a larger increase. Such an increase would raise an entirely different set of issues, and would be a mistake. But we should not put off this debate because of a misplaced confidence that a tie in the Electoral College is a remote possibility.
"minority president" - as it did four years ago, when George W. Bush lost the popular vote but still won the presidency.
Wasn't this true with clinton? He only got 40% of the popular vote?????
An interesting link to more Electorial College "what-if's"...
Fit to Be Tied
New York Times | August 11, 2004 | ROBERT BENNETT
Chicago Almost since its inception more than 200 years ago, the Electoral College has had its critics. Most of the contemporary objections are structural: because the college is apportioned on a state-by-state basis, with most states then choosing their electors through a winner-take-all popular election, the system could lead to what is known as a "minority president" - as it did four years ago, when George W. Bush lost the popular vote but still won the presidency.
But this system has many defenders, who point out that the college retains an important role for the states. A more serious flaw is a more simple one: because it has 538 members - one for each senator and member of the House of Representatives, plus three for the District of Columbia - the Electoral College invites stalemate. We came perilously close to a tie in the 2000 election, when 266 electors voted for Vice President Al Gore and 271 for Gov. George W. Bush (one elector pledged to Mr. Gore cast a blank ballot).
Can we head off the possibility of a tie? The answer is yes - but the only way to do so short of a constitutional amendment is to add an odd number of seats to the House. If the size of the House were increased by one, for instance, there would be 539 members of the college, and much less chance of a tie.
A tie in the Electoral College could be disastrous - because in that case, the House itself chooses the president, and in the House ferocious bargaining might well overwhelm the process. The presidency, after all, is a very big prize, and the House's procedure creates fertile ground for unseemly bargains.
Under the House procedures, each state gets one vote, and a majority of 26 states is required to select the president. The prospect of a tie bedevils this process as well. The states could break 25 to 25, of course, but a more serious possibility is that states with even numbers of representatives might be unable to cast a vote because of a tie in their delegation. There are now 17 states with an even number of House members.
Some members might break party ranks to vote with the winner of the popular vote in their states or districts. That could end ties or create them. More likely, perhaps, is that partisanship would dominate the House voting. At present there are four states with even numbers of Republicans and Democrats in their delegations. If those states were required to abstain, at least initially the House might be unable to choose.
Paralysis would be unlikely if the House vote were held tomorrow, for the Republicans control 29 delegations. There is, however, no reason to think that one party will routinely control a majority of delegations; even when one party has decisive control of the House, it is entirely possible that neither party would have a majority of delegations. In 11 of those 29 delegations, for example, the Republican margin is one vote.
Any standoff would probably not last, given the political costs of stalemate. But the price exacted could be enormous. Who knows what a lone representative, or a few united by a favored cause, might extract from a presidential candidate in return for a defection from party ranks?
Increasing the size of the college will not eliminate the possibility of recourse to the House. There could, for instance, be an abstention, as there was in 2000. But the size of the House is the only component of the Electoral College that can be changed without a constitutional amendment, and the relatively modest step of adding a single seat to the House would greatly reduce the chances of a tie.
An increase in the number of representatives will not come easily. The House has been the same size for almost a century, and even raising the possibility of a small increase would surely tempt states that covet larger delegations to push for a larger increase. Such an increase would raise an entirely different set of issues, and would be a mistake. But we should not put off this debate because of a misplaced confidence that a tie in the Electoral College is a remote possibility.
"minority president" - as it did four years ago, when George W. Bush lost the popular vote but still won the presidency.
Wasn't this true with clinton? He only got 40% of the popular vote?????
An interesting link to more Electorial College "what-if's"...
