One of the most fascinating and contentious presidential elections in modern memory comes to an end in less than three weeks. The polling remains relatively close; the candidates remain combative. The magic number in the all-important Electoral College is 270. The last two elections have been extremely close, both in the popular vote and the electoral vote. George Bush, as we know, lost the popular vote to then Vice President Al Gore but won the electoral vote and thus the presidency, by a margin of 272 to 266. Four years ago President Bush narrowly won the popular vote over Senator John Kerry and increased his winning total slightly in the Electoral College – the electoral vote was 286 to 252 in favor of Bush.
Notice anything interesting about the Electoral College numbers? That’s right; they add up to 538, an even number, thus allowing, at least hypothetically, for the possibility of a 269-269 tie in the electoral vote. After much hand wringing and gnashing of teeth, the question would rapidly become: Now what? For the answer, we’re forced into the deep recesses of Article II of the Constitution. To begin, we can say this – the new President will be chosen by the House of Representatives. In fact, the newly elected House (as of November 4), would make the call. But, here’s where it gets really arcane. According to Article II, “in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote.” This means, among other things, that the 53 representatives from California would get together and decide between Senator McCain and Senator Obama. The one representative from Wyoming gets together with herself and similarly decides. California and Wyoming’s votes are then counted equally!
Still with me? OK, good. Let’s take a state like Ohio, with an even number (18) of representatives. If they divide their votes 9-9, Ohio can’t cast a vote and would be forced to pass. Other states with an even number of representatives may find themselves in the same predicament. Let’s move ahead with the Constitutional language: “a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice”. With 50 states, that means a candidate would need 26 states to secure the election. To illustrate, suppose this occurs: McCain wins 25 states, Obama gets 21, and four deadlock. McCain has not won. The House would need to vote again (and possibly again and again) until either McCain or Obama got to 26.
How likely to occur is the above-described scenario? Not very, but certainly possible. Here’s an example: McCain wins all the Bush states from 2004 except Iowa (7 electoral votes), New Mexico (5), and Nevada (also 5). Obama wins all the Kerry states plus the three just mentioned. That’s 269 to 269. And there are several other combinations that lead to the same result. Politicians being politicians, they will tend to vote for the candidate of their party. That favors Obama; the House is presently controlled by the Democrats and indications are they will increase their majority in next month’s election. But let’s concoct one or two more political fantasies. Suppose there’s not only an Electoral College tie but a McCain victory in the popular vote. Would that result pressure Obama leaning Democrats to vote the other way? We’ll probably never know because an electoral tie remains highly unlikely. But, to come close to putting a cap on this, how many highly unlikely events have we seen already in this election? And, for those metaphysically politically wonky, think about this. How does the 23rd Amendment, giving three electoral votes to Washington, D.C., mesh with Article II? Does the one D.C. delegate to the House of Representatives have a vote in the event of a tie? Or not? That’s enough for now – I’m giving myself a headache. Congratulations on your perseverance if you have made it all the way here to the finish line.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Good Grief--a Tie???
Posted by Jim Bunting at 4:36 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Mr. B,
Good stuff. Got a little bit of a headache, but I think I made it to the finish.
Jack
This election is so exciting! Good thing Mr. Bunting is here to help explain all of these confusing hypothetical Electoral College situations. I can't help wondering how things would turn out if there is in fact a tie in the e.college, and the House of Representatives is forced to decide--and if Ohio did end up tying 8-8 votes. Then our state would have to pass, which could make securing a majority of 26 states all the more difficult.
Mr. B thanks for the explanation. Why has nothing been done to create a
more definite solution if a tie in fact occurs? Knowing now that states can deadlock, I see that a tie is, although still unlikely, much more likely than I ever imagined.
It’s pretty amazing that if this does happen the next president will be decided by such an inequitable vote. It seems as if this clause in the US Constitution should be amended to fit the times. Why should the vote of Delaware or Vermont count the same as states like California or Texas? It should not! When the Constitution was written, the details of this clause may have been set this way as a sort of compromise between previously divided states, who had varying opinions and agendas. No longer do people say “The United States are…” Just as this phrase has been discarded, so should this outdated clause in Article II.
If there is a tie in the Electoral College and the presidential election comes down to a vote from the House of Representatives there will not be another tie. The elected members of the House of Representatives were elected to represent their districts of the state. As the Representatives it is their responsibility to listen to the ideas of the people in their districts. Therefore if each state had a winner by popular vote the representatives know how to cast their votes.
Although I did not go to the trouble of coming up with all the combinations of states Electoral votes that equal 269, I did find that the minimum number of states needed to tie or win an election is twelve, so a tie could potentially result in a 38 to 12 vote in the house. This just goes to show that there is large combination of states that could combine to 269 votes and if the Representatives are serving the people the way they were elected to, their vote will correlate with that of their states previous decision resulting in the fact that it is nearly impossible to tie in the House vote.
Because each state acts as one voting party in the event of a tie, the District of Columbia makes the total number 51. In accordance with the 23rd amendment, the state has all the same rights as a voting body as the others, so it should absolutely be included in this. Thus, such a situation could not occur.
The fact that this election could be so close goes to show how divided this country is. After reading your post, I began to ponder on the importance of an electoral college. It is depressing to think that my vote will not affect any results in the presidential election. How can we call this a democracy when we do not directly elect our president? I have decided, however that the electoral college is a necessity. Many Americans are simply unfit to vote. When the majority of media tends to lean left, it is easy to understand why the majority of people also lean left. The people in the Electoral College are hopefully well educated and able to look at the facts and make a decision.
I believe that the possible situation Mr. Bunting points out is a prime example as to why we should not have an Electoral College. I see the purpose for which it was founded, but I do not think the E.C. is necessary today. In the modern campaign there is no reason for a representative for the candidate because every voter knows the candidate (or at least should). Why are going through a middleman if we don’t have to? The candidate chosen by the Electoral College is not always a direct representation of the peoples’ choice, take the election of 2000 for an example. The candidate that obtains office should be the one that wins the popular vote, not the electoral.
WOW Mr. B lots of good stuff about the electoral college voting. i got a lil lost but its all good
All relates to the constituting of this country as a republic vs. a democracy. These myriad exceptions to straightforward democratic "one man (?) one vote" rule guarentees that restraints on the popular will endure, made manifest by the unpredictable nature of the many negotiations which these processesmight require. The best measure of a democracy is its treatment of its minorities. All else is but mob rule.
Post a Comment