Posted on 02/19/2012 5:11:45 AM PST by Kaslin
WASHINGTON – The politics behind who governs here dabbles in the absurd so often that absurdity is practically normal. So it is not ridiculous to consider that the next presidential election could end in an electoral tie.
If so, it would be the fourth time that has occurred – and likely would bring to its knees the controversial math that ultimately decides the presidency.
For more than 200 years and 44 presidents, the Electoral College has been the mechanism to make certain that the American president has sufficient popular support throughout the country to govern effectively.
Our presidents are elected to four-year terms by 538 Electoral College voters, one per senator and representative from each state and three for the District of Columbia.
Sometimes the electoral vote ends in a tie, especially when the country is divided right down the middle.
If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the decision falls to the House of Representatives.
According to House historian Matthew Wasniewski, the question of who selects the president became one of the most volatile debates among the Constitution’s framers; some wanted state legislatures to do so, while others favored direct election.
The argument against state legislatures having that power was that a president might constantly try to please the state bodies and thus not remain independent. The argument against direct elections was that presidents would always come from more populous states, thus rendering rural states voiceless.
Ultimately, the electoral system was chosen. “But the framers of the Constitution didn’t anticipate the development of a strong two-party system when they settled on the college as the method for electing presidents,” Wasniewski said.
The elections of 1800, 1824 and 1876 pointed out some of the weaknesses in their constitutional design.
The first effort to correct those problems came with the 12th Amendment to the Constitution following Thomas Jefferson’s hotly-contested first election as president. Amid public unhappiness with the electoral commission in the Hayes-Tilden presidential dispute, reforms of the 1880s aimed to make states the final arbiters of the legality of their slates of electors, Wasniewski said.
The first tie election occurred in 1800, when Jefferson and incumbent president John Adams both received 73 electoral votes; 36 ballots later, the House chose Jefferson.
Everything about that transition of power was dramatic and included name-calling, accusations of corruption, divisional party politics – even duels.
“And we think today’s politics are divisive,” said Wasniewski. “It is rare that this country is not in a rancorous political moment.”
In 2008, candidate Barack Obama became president by racking up 365 electoral votes to opponent John McCain’s 173; he turned the traditional Republican-red states of Ohio, Virginia, Colorado and Florida to Democrat-blue and left McCain in the dust.
The political map that Obama is attempting to follow this year – thanks to a skeptical electorate that is not so enamored of his governance – narrows his electoral numbers to 273, and even that is based on a lot of assumptions.
“Should President Obama manage to keep Virginia, Colorado and New Mexico in the Democratic column, while Nevada, North Carolina, Iowa, Indiana, New Hampshire, Ohio and Florida return to the Republican column, a 269-269 tie would result,” according to presidential historian Lara Brown.
As a result of the Constitution’s 12th Amendment, choosing the president in a tie election goes to the newly elected members of the House, while choosing the vice president goes to the Senate.
“In short,” said Brown, “it is possible that Mitt Romney, assuming he wins the Republican Party's nomination, would become president, and Joe Biden would remain as the vice president” – that is, assuming Democrats retain control of the Senate and Republicans retain the House.
"After what is likely to be a highly negative, high-spending campaign, should the Congress select the president and the vice president, I imagine that the calls for reform of the Electoral College would be deafening from all sides of the partisan aisle,” Brown added.
In other words, if the first order of business in the next Congress is to select the president and the vice president, then the second order of business may well be to pass a constitutional amendment abolishing the Electoral College.
The abolition of the electoral college can not happen
if it does, there is no more America.
If they ever succeed in doing away with the Electoral College, it’s go time.
While suspicious of a lie, as I could not think of ANY founder that espoused a national vote for anything, I became sure of it when I found out, just now, that Wasnutski was appointed by none other than nanzi pelousy (in 2010).
The Electoral College is the protection against mass urban voting, and centralizing the entire election on ten states. Few people ever grasp how significant it is...to force candidates to campaign and play out the game in all fifty states. If you toss the Electoral College....then you really don’t need to campaign in Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, Hawaii, or Montana. I probably wouldn’t even run a primary in those states....if there is no Electoral College.
I would agree....it’s pretty much no US at that point. Just center your sights on the five biggest states for population, and then key on the top twenty urban centers/cities of the country.
Yep, thank goodness they passed the Seventeenth Amendment!
Rats have been trying to kill EC for a while. Hillary was sending up trial balloons in 2008 and Gore in 2000.
NPV is a fast track to revolt.
It will be ‘wise’ lawyers like our two recent appointed Supreme Court Justices who will succeed in destroying the electoral college.
Correct, it would allow unlimited electoral fraud and deception by small base.
Bump!
GOP chairman Gleason was the main factor in opposition to this legislation which Gov. Corbett had already pledged to sign.
And for what? So Gleason could brag about delivering all 20 of Pennsylvania's electoral votes in roughly one election of five when they wouldn't affect the ultimate outcome anyway?
The abolition of the electoral college must never be allowed to happen
THe “EC” is the last small vestige of the original republic of 1787. It’s the only thing an original founder would recognize if we could re animate one of them now.
Yeah, it provides a little protection, but if you look at a county-by-county voting map, it's staggering to see the effects of the mass urban voting you mentioned.
And even now, they only make token visits to the small states. They'll visit Florida 20 times for every visit to North Dakota. Truth is, Democrats don't give a damn what the people of North Dakota think because they're such a non-factor in getting them elected.
There’s a lot of talk of “modernizing” our constitution these days as well. Among the ideas for that modernizing is a lot of talk of social, economic, and environmental justice.
The Electoral College’s days are numbered. As the Nation continues to be dumded down ans as the sheep depend more and more on the Govermental tit for substance, as the Republican Party morphs more and more into step with the dominate Democrat Party, the cry will increase to either abloish or ignore the Electoral College and go with the popular vote. My guess is that they will just ignore it like obama ignores the Constitution. Should they decide to ignore it, who will challenge them? The sheep? Balony! As long as Monday Night Football, American Idol, and their Government “freebies” are not touched, most of the sheep will not notice one way or the other. For that matter, there are probably no more than a thousand people in each State that unnderstands the purpose of the Electoral College and its function.
If it dies, across the nation, random democrats will die as the purgative to the force fed progressive meal
So what, exactly, does "revolt" look like?
For the sake of discussion, I mean...
Mass protest in Washington, DC?
Tea Parties BTDT. No change.
Armed insurrection?
Against whom? Local authorities? Federal in Washington, back by federal armament and then military?
"Revolt"?
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.