Could Next Tie Doom Electoral College?

Townhall.com ^ | February 19, 2012 | Salena Zito

[AuH2ORepublican]

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME! This author is so ignorant that she thinks that in 1800 the House of Representatives had to choose from between Jefferson and President John Adams, when every schoolboy knows (or at least should know) that Jefferson had been tied in the Electoral College with his own VP candidate, Aaron Burr. This occurred, of course, because prior to the adoption of the 12th Amendment to the Constitution (which was approved soon thereafter in reaction to the 1800 debacle), presidential electors voted for two candidates without designating one as president and one as VP, with the person with the most electoral votes winning the presidency and the second-place finisher winning the vice presidency (provided that they received votes from a majority of electors); the system worked until political parties that nominated presidential tickets developed. In 1800, the Democratic-Republican Party ran Jefferson (who was the incumbent VP because he had finished second to the Federalist John Adams in the 1796 election) for President and Burr for VP, but had instructed one of the electors not to vote for Burr so as to avoid a tie between Jefferson and Burr; the elector forgot to do so, and Jefferson and Burr finished tied, with the lame-duck, Federalist-controlled House having to break the deadlock. Federalists hated Jefferson, and were even willing to elect Burr instead, but Alexander Hamilton hated fellow New Yorker Burr at a personal level even more than he did Jefferson (who had been his arch-nemesis since their days serving in President Washington's first Cabinet), and Hamilton's support for Jefferson led to Jefferson being elected president and Burr VP. Burr was outraged, as only a future traitor to the United States could be (could you picture Dick Cheney being upset because the House didn't elect him president over his party's presidential candidate, George W. Bush?), and his relationship with Hamilton got so bad that they eventually fought a duel, where Burr killed Hamilton.

Saying that in 1800 the House had to break an electoral tie between Jefferson and Adams is as stupid as saying that in 2000 the Supreme Court ruled to stop the Florida recount and allow Bush to defeat *Clinton* for the presidency. Townhall is a great site reprinting articles from many terrific conservative writers, but its editors (if it has any) should really start proofreading submissions in order to avoid such embarrassing ignorance from being displayed on the site.

[BobL]

I used to believe in the Electoral College. But we got Obama, so why bother having it?

[cripplecreek]

I used to believe in the Electoral College. But we got Obama, so why bother having it?

Because getting rid of it will guarantee an Obama every time.

[House Atreides]

“Simple.
Simple.
Simple solution.
Change your formula so that there is an ODD number of
electors instead of an even number.

PROBLEM SOLVED.”
*******************************************************

I agree. Just remove one of the allowed electors from DC. Once Virginia was given back “its” portion of DC, DC forever lost any right to have a future in which it would be treated like a full state.

Better yet, give the geographical remnant of DC back to Maryland. That will solve this “even number problem”.

[Theodore R.]

there are probably no more than a thousand people in each State that unnderstand the purpose of the Electoral College and its function.

Sadly, so true; even the "educated" don't understand, and the pupils can't learn it.

[Theodore R.]

Didn’t the House in 1801 have the option of John Adams too as the third-place electoral votegetter? In 1825, the House considered John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, and William Crawford but had to eliminate Henry Clay from consideration.

[Publius]

By the time the 1824 election went into the House, Crawford had died of a stroke. That left it between Jackson and Jake Adams.

[Gaffer]

This pictoral tells anyone with any sense all they need to know. If the red areas indicate those that want to do away with the Electoral College, then screw them. No one can convince me otherwise a national popular vote is a good idea.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Another option to ensure an odd number of electors (but keep in mind that a third candidate could take an odd number, leaving the two leaders in a tie) is to:

If naturally an odd number, leave it alone.

If an even number, and the state with the largest number of EVs voted with the winner in the last election, subtract one elector from that state.

If even and if the largest state voted with the loser, add one EV.

Sorta like the NFL draft. The worst gets a little advantage.

[Anti-Bubba182]

Do away with the EC and nobody is going to campaign in smaller states, especially a demagogue like Obama. All he need do is turn out the vote in urban union and welfare sucking strong points.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Simple?

Article 2 of the US Constitution:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress"

Honestly, you think an amendment to the Constitution is a simple thing?

[Jacquerie]

Actually, the popular vote along with other methods were considered at the Constitutional Convention, here.

For TR, I think you will enjoy the link above. By September 1787, the system of electors was the last method standing.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

When the House selects a president, they vote by delegation: each state gets one vote. California counts the same as Wyoming or Alaska.

[ak267]

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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In that case, it will be done under CONSTITUTIONAL stipulations where it can be openly debated. Better that way than the behind-the-scenes NPV crap.

And so what if it comes down the House of Representatives. That’s under Constitutional stipulations as well.

Translation: “Those darn Republicans won the house in 2010 and will break the tie!!!!”

[Vigilanteman]

My rep is Tim Krieger, a real stand-up guy, who told me Gleason's firm opposition is the main reason that Sen. Dominic Pileggi's bill is stalled. I told him Gleason's is a horse's a** who had to be removed from his office not only for the good of the GOP, but the good of the Commonwealth as well. He says there are a lot of people in our part of the state who agreed, but they don't have the votes yet.

I'll ask him about the voter ID bill as I think he as TEA Party friendly as Dunbar.

[Vigilanteman]

Correction: William Crawford suffered a stroke in 1824, but he did not die from it. He was even offered a position in John Quincy Adam's cabinet, but turned it down. He went on to live another 12 years. As the #3 vote getter, he was eliminated from the final round which came down to Andrew Jackson and John Q. Adams.

Bottom line is that as chaotic as the 1824 election turned out to be, it still showed the system worked. The decision was turned over to the House of Representatives as constitutionally prescribed and the top two vote getters had their opportunity to be POTUS.

[AuH2ORepublican]

No, back then (before the adoption of the 12th Amendment), the House got to decide among the top five electoral-vote recipients if no one got votes from a majority of electors, but if there was a tie (with both receiving votes from a majority of electors) the House would choose from between the two tied candidates. When the lame-duck House met in early 1801, its members could decide only between Jefferson and Burr; had they had the option of re-electing Federalist President John Adams, they would have certainly done so.

When the House got to decide the 1824 election, it was over 20 years after the 12th Amendment had been ratified, and thus electors voted for one candidate for president and one for VP. The Federalists had disbanded by then, and four prominent Democratic-Republicans, albeit representing different factions within the party, ran for president: Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, John Quincy Adams and William Crawford. No one got a majority of electoral votes, with Jackson and Adams finishing first and second and Crawford barely beating Clay out for third place. The House would get to choose from among the top three, and had Clay (who was the current Speaker and had served as Speaker for 10 of the prior 14 years) finished third he would have been elected; with Clay out of the running, and Crawford ill and having less House support than the other two, it quickly became a two-man race between Jackson and Adams. In order for the House to elect a president, a majority of state delegations must vote for a candidate, and John Quincy Adams’s strong support from Northeastern states helped win a majority of state delegations and thus the election.

[Impy]

Wow, embarrassing.

And a silly article to write anyway, Republicans in Congress and the state legislatures aren’t gonna vote away the electoral college, especially if a Republican House just voted out Obama.

Nowadays it would the new House that voted right?

[AuH2ORepublican]

Yes, it would be the new House, since they’ll be seated on January 3, 2013 and have time to elect the president by Jan. 20; in the old days the new session wouldn’t start until the next October, and since the president had to be elected by March 4 it was the lame-duck House that voted.

If no presidential candidate gets a majority of EVs, it takes 26 state delegations in the House to elect a president. The GOP currently controls 33 state delegations in the House. Thanks to redistricting, NC (which has a 7-6 Dem majority) will surely have a GOP majority (probably 10-3) next year, but IL (which has a bare GOP majority this year) will surely have a Dem majority for the same reason. The GOP is unlikely to pick up any other delegation (although NM is a possibility), and it is possible that the GOP will lose control of a couple of delegations (I wouldn’t be surprised if both the NV and NH delegations were 50-50 next year), but I would be shocked if the GOP controlled less than 30 delegations next year. In other words, Obama needs to get to 270 EVs if he wants to be reelected.

[Impy]

I always thought that odd that Congress started up almost a year after (or more than a year since some states voted early) their election. What was the reason, do you know? The original line in the constitution said Congress would meet in December! unless they chose an earlier date.

The GOP is unlikely to pick up any other delegation (although NM is a possibility), and it is possible that the GOP will lose control of a couple of delegations (I wouldn’t be surprised if both the NV and NH delegations were 50-50 next year), but I would be shocked if the GOP controlled less than 30 delegations next year.

Worried about small mouth Bass losing to that mop haired witch that almost got him in '10? It would be shame if we were reduced to one seat in New England instead of the much more respectable 2 (...).

I'd add a possible gain, MN (tied now) if Craavick wins and Waltz loses. And that's a loss if the reverse occurs.

Another worrisome state is Arizona of all places, only 4 of the 9 new seats are safe GOP seats. But I would be surprised if we don't win at least 1 of the 3 competitive seats.

An aside about Henry Clay, I always wondered what kind of President he would have made (after any of his 3 failed elections). A competent, (and breathing, at least through a full term), Whig/Proto Whig President would have been interesting. If he had gotten through in '24 would Jackson have wolloped him in '28 like he did to Adams? If it had happened in '44 would we have still had war with Mexico?