In the event of a tie, Americans would support the candidate who got the most popular votes. Imagine a tie but with Obama having 800,000 more votes than McCain nationwide. A great argument could be that a majority of the people wanted Obama, so the House should respect that. Especially in light of what happened in 2000. I just don't see Obama getting more pop votes than McCain and not getting the benefit in light of a tie, or even vice versa.
« Four People Who Could Decide The Election. | Main | GOP Angered At ACORN's Fouls » In The Event Of An Electoral Tie...03 Oct 2008 03:42 pm
Reader DT:
Comments (49)
If Obama tied in the electoral college and won by 800,000 popular votes, you would have riots in every major city in America if he were not named President -- especially after 2000. 
I suppose the question is, who would a Democrat support if he/she represents a pro-McCain district but Obama has an unambiguous popular vote lead? Do you go with personal choice, district choice, statewide choice, or countrywide choice? Also, same question but with McCain winning popular vote?
Why are you spending so much time on this today? There is not going to be an electoral vote tie.
I would be very surprised if the House did not go for the candidate who won the popular vote. However, if the House chose McCain, would the Senate do the right thing and pick Biden? I think America might approve.
Yeah. That would so not be problematic at all if the first black candidate for President won the popular vote by 800 000 votes and the House decided to give it to the old white republican instead. I really don't see why this would not be a potential disaster and a travesty. Nope. I don't see it
I would hope that in the event of a tie a number of states would change their laws enacting the "Maryland plan" in the time between the end of voting and the certification of the votes. This would not only make Obama President but put to to bed the dangerous line the electoral college walks in hypothetically overruling the actual will of the people.
That is funny. Americans might support the constitution while obama supporters would stage the next brooks bothers riots. Anybody see the dnc meeting where Hillary had deletages taken away and obama was award delegates from a state where he removed his name from the ballot. No, nobody saw the actual stealing taking place. That happened in the smoke filled backroom. But we know what the after effects were. Oh and yeah Hillary won the popular vote and more registered dems voted for Hillary. How did stealing the nom from Hillary work out for the dems?
Oh boy... "hadenough," the DNC meeting was actually open to the public and aired on C-SPAN. I watched the video, as did thousands of other people.
I think you'd have to look at it state by state, since it's a one-vote-per-state-delegation system. I took a glance at the map a couple of weeks ago, when this seemed more likely, and there were about 20 states that McCain would win in the most obvious tie scenario where the House delegation was GOP-majority or tied, and about 20 Obama states with a Dem majority or tie. Those states would presumably vote for the popular vote winner (or maybe possibly deadlock, in the case of a delegation tie). In the other states, though, where one party controls the delegation but the won the popular vote, it's harder to predict. Some House members would probably vote the way their district voted, out of self-preservation if nothing else, but it's not obvious that all would, and it's not knowable now what result that voting pattern would give anyway. Anyone who says they know for sure how it would play out is wrong.
The country would erupt in revolution if Obama won the popular vote and was denied the presidency. That happened already, and the result was the Bush administration. Does anyone honestly think that the nation would stand for it again? Conversely, if McCain won the popular vote and was denied the presidency, the country would probably be OK with it. Why? There would be lots of people arguing the poetic justice of reversing the 2000 results (the Dem wins instead of the GOPer) -- and many would like the pull and symbolism of giving it to the first Black prez. And the Senate could give the VP to McCain instead of Palin or Biden, no? None of this matters, though, because Obama is fixing to win handily.
Marc, You shouldn't think of the House of Representatives as being a single entity controlled by the Democrats at this point, you should see it as being a body which happens to have delegations from all 50 states (of which the Democrats are the majority in all of them). Members of congress would likely be more worried about which candidate won their district and by what margin. Remember, in the House of Representatives, all pollitics is local.
A tie would be a lot of fun for political science geeks. The National Journal column points out that a lot of House members would be torn between loyalty to their party and loyalty to their constituents. I think the public might rally around the idea that the popular vote should be used as a tie breaker, even though there's no Constitutional basis for it. So, Democratic members of the House from red states might go with the popular vote winner and use that rationale as cover from angry constituents/colleagues. Of course, there's also the possibility that the vote in the House gets so bogged down, that a reaching a majority is impossible. Then, I believe, the VP elected by the Senate would be promoted to the main job. I think Senators are much more likely to stay loyal to their party, so I think a Democrat is a lock to win that. Hello President Biden!
Hadenough, you do realize that it was a miracle that Hillary got ANY votes out of disqualified states?
"Oh boy... "hadenough," the DNC meeting was actually open to the public and aired on C-SPAN. I watched the video, as did thousands of other people. Posted by Hatch" Then you know deciding to steal delegates from Hillary and give obama delegates from a state that obama removed his name from the ballot was decided the night before in a private, smoke filled, bacbroom. As mentioned during the meeting aired on c-span. As we know the dnc could not count delegates fairly or obama would lose. obama might, might have had a tiny lead 1% or less which means supers would have decided the primary. Hillary had not only the popular vote but the vote of a majority of registed dems. Which one do you think the supers would have gone?
In the event of a tie, the House would almost assuredly name Obama VP, assuming that the (narrow) Democratic advantage in control of House delegations holds past the November elections. The complication would be this: there is what congressional elections expert G. Jacobson calls a "structural advantage" for Rs in the House. In 2000, despite losing the popular vote, Bush ran ahead in 240 congressional districts. In 2008, there are likely to be a number of Democratic reps from states with Democratic-majority congressional delegations who hail from districts McCain won handily. There will be fewer Rs from Obama-win districts. Just a wrinkle to consider....
i would not feel too confident in Democrats like Heath Shuler, Chet Edwards and others voting for Barack. I think most will vote the will of their district...
While it is possible that a draw might occur, if it did so, Obama would most likely have the popular vote, which would probably help sway Democrats in redder states. However, I wouldn't bet on riots. Obama would think of his political future, and discourage his supporters from doing so. If they did, he would gain a reputation as a trouble-maker, which doesn't fit with his image. So I think that's out of the question.
Nate Silver did some analysis of tie scenarios about a month ago, and based on polling then, thought it was most likely that McCain would have to win the popular vote in order to tie the EC. I think the split was 80/20. This presents an interesting scenario. The House votes for President one state on vote. The Democrats currently have 27 states, Republicans 21 (two tied). You need an absolute majority of 26 to win. If the Democrats lose two states, or some blue dogs decide to bolt and vote McCain, you'll get deadlock. What happens then? Nobody knows. The only other time involved I think 37 re-votes until Thomas Jefferson won. If they deadlocked to Jan 20...hello President Biden.
The possibility of a 269-269 tie is reason for McCain's post-Michigan campaign's focus on Maine's 2nd district and likewise why yesterday Obama opened more offices in Nebraska's 2nd district, which is the Omaha metropolitan area. Maine and Nebraska are the only two states to allocate electoral votes by congressional district, plus two electoral votes awarded to the overall winner in the state.
If there is an electoral vote tie, then it is more likely than not McCain will win the popular vote. But especially after 2004, where Gore won the popular vote but lost the election, I don't see the House of Representatives giving that any weight. They have to answer to their constituents, not the population as a whole. Most will vote their party, because that is expected of them. A few will vote the way their congressional district voted, but I predict not enough to change the outcome. Based on the party control of the state delegations, Obama would be elected in the House.
"Members of congress would likely be more worried about which candidate won their district and by what margin. Remember, in the House of Representatives, all pollitics is local."
There is no way the democratic representatives from the red state would vote for McCain and make him president. Do you think republicans would do the same thing and elect Obama if it was other way round? Nope. So get real.
OMG, Palin already running for 2012. Read this per Politicalwire: Palin Criticizes McCain Decision on Michigan In an interview with Fox News, Gov. Sarah Palin criticized Sen. John McCain's decision "to pull campaign resources out of Michigan, saying she and her husband Todd would 'be happy' to campaign in the economically distraught battleground state." Palin said that when she read the news, she "fired off a quick e-mail and said, 'Oh come on, do we have to?'" ----------------------------- One more interesting breaking story: Palin Tax Returns Released Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign released Gov. Sarah Palin's tax returns for the previous two years, 2006 and 2008. The information was expected on Monday, so a Friday afternoon drop is interesting. Tax law experts are particularly interested in how she handled the per diem payments that she received as governor for staying in her own home.
This isn't even a question. The most powerful person in the world is indebted to you. Screw being in Congress, you'll be a cabinet head.
I say we let Marc Ambinder decide.
It's pretty absurd to think any Democratic House member would vote to make a Republican President. They'd be kicked out of the caucus, stripped of their committee assignments, probably the victim of a primary, and no way their base would come out to vote for them in 2 years. (Same for any Republican House member voting for the other guy of course.) That, and as a Democrat, they probably truly believe a Democratic President is immensely important. If the House member wanted to outright switch parties, well that would be a time to do it I suppose. But party switches, particularly from majority to minority, are pretty rare. It's very interesting to believe otherwise, but by November 6th Pelosi would have a list of 26 delegations that had committed to vote for Obama, and the GAO would move forward with the transition process.
"Hadenough, you do realize that it was a miracle that Hillary got ANY votes out of disqualified states? Posted by Chris" Chris do you reliaze we must be talking about an even bigger miracle for obama to get votes out of state where obama took his name off the ballot?
I suspect it wouldn't be tough for Obama to twist the arms of the at-large Democrats. A simple "If you lose reelection, there'll be a position in the Executive branch waiting for you" would probably suffice. Stephanie Herseth, head of BIA? Ethan Berkowitz, deputy Attorney General? Seems like it might work well enough to get to 26.
Nate's analysis was done at the height of the McCain convention bounce, when it looked like he was opening up decent leads in FL, OH, VA, and NC, but Obama looked competitive in the Kerry states plus CO, IA and NM (and thus could squeak out an electoral win or loss while losing the popular vote). In the present environment, for McCain to squeak out an electoral tie or win, he's going to have to win FL, OH, VA and NC by the slimmest of margins. Obama would probably run up big totals in CA, IL, NY, etc., meaning he'd probably win the popular vote -- especially because McCain would almost certainly "only" win his big states (TX and GA) by high single digits. (Another way to think about it is to classify the big states as O big, O close, M big, M close. In that scenario: O big: CA, NY, IL, MA, NJ. As you can see, Obama has a lot more states in which he can run up vote totals.)
I'm sure the Dem's would arrange enough of a vote for Obama as to protect their truly endangered members. Personally, if an electoral vote is tied, I have a hard time arguing that 'the will of the people' has been circumvented regardless of who is chosen.
I hope for the good of the country that there is no tie and Obama wins in a landslide. But the way this election has been going so far this year, it wouldn't be surprising. What if the vote came down to who won the pop vote in each state. So assume the scenario that Obama wins all Kerry states (except NH) plus IA, NM and CO. That would be only 22 states for Obama. By the way, what happens if each get 25 states? I am assuming DC and US territories do not get a vote so there are 50 votes, correct?
If its a tie, even if McCain gets more votes, the democratic controlled house should make Obama the President. After what happened in 2000 when Gore got more votes nationwide and the majority Republican-appointed Supreme Court shut down the recount in Florida, there is no way on earth John S McCain III should be made President in the event of a tie. No way on earth.
1) Because of shifts in population away from blue states to red states McCain is very unlikely to tie in EVs without winning the popular vote. 2) Bragging rights on popular vote doesn't matter much. Control of House delegations is what matters. Right now the Democrats control 27 out of 50. If I am not mistaken, they need 26 for a win or 25 to throw it to the Senate (which elects the VP) where the Democrats almost certainly win. It is very unlikely that the Republicans can get control of 26 delegations this year given the number of states they control (no more than 21 since there are at least 2 ties) and the number of states they have to defend (NM, Alaska, NV, MO). The only problem for the Dems is that they control a number of delegations in deep red states (SD, MS, ND) where there might be pressure to brake ranks. Otherwise tie goes to Obama.
Because of shifts in population away from blue states to red states McCain is very unlikely to tie in EVs without winning the popular vote. Except the population shifts tended to be Democratic-leaning voters moving into red states. So while the red states are gaining population-wise, they are also getting less red, which really cuts into Republicans' margins in them. (VA, CO and NC are prime examples of this.)
It's pretty absurd to think any Democratic House member would vote to make a Republican President. Shock Mouse wins the thread
It's a powerful argument, as we vote by pretty much the same rules in all the states--the exceptions are more when can you register and how early can you vote, not the caucus/open/closed issues of the primaries. I don't see that convincing sitting-up-straight Lowry, or Dick Cheney--if you had a Republican House it would mean squat-diddly. But with a Dem house, the argument would provide enough cover to vote Obama in over district grumbles.
I don't care who is ahead in the popular vote. I want Obama and payback to the Supremes for 2000.
I think if Obama wins the popular vote, the vast majority of the Democratic caucus holds firm and Obama wins in the House. If McCain wins the popular vote (which seems more likely if we're positing an electoral college tie...but who knows?)...that's the question. If Obama didn't concede in such circumstances (and he damn well shouldn't), I don't think he's going to be abandoned en masse by the party, and without a lot of defections, it's very hard for McCain to win in the House - the Republicans only control 20 or so delegations, and he'd need to win 26 to win. One thing that will definitely happen if there's a tie - Sarah Palin is doomed. I foresee practically no chance that the Senate would pick her over Biden.
In a rare split double-whammy ruling we get Obama/Palin. Hilarity ensues. To be serious 1: A tie is very unlikely to happen. 2: A tie in the Electoral College would mean Obama/Biden. True the Constitution apparently says that in such a case "the delegation from each state casts a single vote", which could seem to give McCain "hope" as red-states might outnumber blue ones in an Electoral tie scenario. (Although this isn't certain to me as many "blue states" are also small in population) However many of the "red-states" have majority Democratic House delegations and overall the majority of states have majority Democratic delegations from what I can tell. (A few are tied, but in the case of a state tie the state delegation would likely vote Obama if their state did likewise) I really can't conceive of Obama losing in this situation. And as a McCain voter I would not want him to win that way.
We have party line votes over things like tax bills, time lines, judges, and the budget all the time. Does anyone really think we wouldn't have a party line vote when the single most important position is up for grabs? Any vulnerable Dem not supporting Obama would suddenly find himself very unpopular with the leadership, and perhaps more importantly with major Democratic donors.
There isn't going to be anywhere close to a tie. But in the theoretical case that there was one, Republicans would unanimously vote for McCain because... that's the way they are. So it would come down to whether enough Democrats in districts that went for McCain would put party and country first or whether they would vote for McCain to protect their re-election chances. In the end especially since the Dems will win a dozen or more new seats in November, the Dems should have control of enough state delegations to put Obama over the top. But again this isn't going to happen. Obama is going to have over 330 electoral votes and political science junkies will have to wait another 4 years for their beloved but disastrous election goes to the House scenario to take place.
Looking at the partisan divisions of House delegations in "The Almanac of American Politics," the outcome of a House election could be completely unreflective of the popular- and electoral-vote outcomes. On a party-line vote, Obama would lose Delaware, Michigan, Virginia, Florida and Ohio, possibly Nevada and New Mexico, but win Arkansas, the Dakotas, Indiana, Mississipi, North Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginia. With one-seat flips in their delegations, Illinois could go to McCain and Arizona to Obama. But that assumes party-line voting, which is not realistic. I don't see people up for reelection in two years defying their voters on the presidency. I would anticipate agonized votes for the opposition by the sole representatives of Delaware and the Dakotas, and a lot of tactical abstentions in multi-seat delegations, especially among white Southern Democrats. GOP representatives in the Upper Midwest would be less likely to go with their states' electoral results. I'm assuming the newly seated House would vote -- i.e., after Jan. 3, 2009 -- although I haven't seen any clarification of that. It could be important in delegations that are now closely divided.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I would like to inform readers that I sent off my postal ballot for John McCain this week. I may be in a swing state on the election day, hence the early vote. responses below rather than to my email, please.
If Obama wins the popular vote and ties in the Electoral College, it will just make his election by a Democratic majority of the House delegations non-controversial.
If there is a 269-269 tie (this will happen if McCain wins Ohio and Colorado but loses Nevada) then the outgoing lame-duck Congress makes the choice. It is a straight-up vote with no debate. The newly elected Congress isn't sworn in until the second week of January and the new President must be sworn in by January 20 so the current congress would choose at the end of November or early December. The current house is Democratic so they'll choose Obama. The Senate, however, has 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, one socialist, and one independent Democrat. While this gives the Democrats control of the Senate, it will not line up that way in choosing the Vice-President. The Socialist, Bernie Sanders, will vote with the Democrats for Obama, giving him 50 votes. Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat is a McCain-Palin supporter so he will vote for Palin. This causes a 50-50 tie in the Senate which outgoing Vice-President Cheney will break in favor of Palin. The end result will be Obama as President and Sarah Palin as Vice-President. We could be in for interesting times.
"The country would erupt in revolution if Obama won the popular vote and was denied the presidency." No. In 2000 the Supreme Court called the election, which was constitutionally irregular. The Constitution leaves the assignment of delegates to the states, but the SCOTUS overrulled that with a indefensible argument which right-wing on the court refused to defend publicly (he just says "get over it; it was a long time ago") If the House decided the election it would be 100% in line with what the Constutition prescribes. Obama supporters would be mad, but it would actually be less of a travesty than 2000. There are states where the state went for McCain but the delegation will be for Obama. Indiana is one. North Carolina is another. McCain's advantage in smaller-population states helps him, but the House advantage for the Dems helps them. All that said, a tie is plausible in the current scenario (NH going to McCain, IA, CO and NM going to Obama), but still very unlikely. "Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat is a McCain-Palin supporter so he will vote for Palin" I'd wonder about that. Obviously he supports McCain over Obama. But Palin over Biden? That's hard to swallow. Lieberman's RNC speech convinced me that he's no Zell Miller. But if he did vote Palin over Biden, it would convince me that he supports a wild, incompetent, bellicose Middle East policy over a sane, competent, and slightly less bellicose Middle East policy.
What to do if there's a tie? Simple: Give the rest of the world the casting vote. It's not like this election doesn't affect us, after all...
Be realistic. If Obama gets any less than 60% of the vote, the Republicans will announce that they won and swear in McCain, secure in the knowledge that nobody will do anything about it.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Obama has the House votes if it ends in a tie, so this seems like a silly exercise and just filler.
Posted by Mike Nickols | October 3, 2008 3:47 PM