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"?
The votes of the electors continue to be a practical way to dissipate regional dominance over the whole nation.
If Mit were the Republican nominee, there's little chance a new House of Representatives would elect him anyway.
IMHO you are dead on. “The big shiny city on the hill” will be a collection of large, power mad, parasitic and dependent slum cities sucking every last resource from this once great land through crooked regressive progressive politics. They will only produce crime, murder and fraudulent ballots.
Now to find a coffee and chill as I scared myself.
“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.”
All the more important to extinguish it, then.
Progress is on the march! Power to the people!
Democracy Now, as they shout.
Sad, really.
Simple.
Simple.
Simple solution.
Change your formula so that there is an ODD number of
electors instead of an even number.
PROBLEM SOLVED.
Do you recall that a few years back, a few in the media and a few politicans includinh Hilary Clinton made a few noises about the Electoral College being obsolete and Presidents shpuld be elected by popular vote? At that point in time, it did not resonate and was dropped.
Yes, but like any good communist goal it will keep coming back until it is the law of the land. These people never stop undermining liberty. They just lay low for a while and try again.
The electoral college in fact is the screen that surrounds the true power that is hidden in this country that has yet to emerge once again: The States.
What can tell no to the President, the Congress and even overrule the Supreme Court? 38 states acting in unison.
That is true power, that nothing can stop.
We have 29 states fighting Obamacare right now. If we only had 9 more.
And as far as it happening or not happening goes,I never thought that people who consider themselves to be Americans would put a muslim sob like obamain the white House.
I cannot imagine the small states (vote wise) to allow this to happen.
I personally felt that there would be more ruckas raised about the way obamacare than there was. in the past holy hell would have been raised until it was rescinded, but, that was then and this is now.The more corrupt we become as a Nation, the more servile to Government we become as a people.
The Electoral College actually gives the people of the smaller states a disproportionate voice in electing the president. This is due to the 2 Senators that every state has while representation in the House is proportional to population.
It’s a small advantage but an important one.
Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, Hawaii, or Montana.
I would add, SD UT WY ID NE NM and there are probably some more. Two of those have far less than a million population.
Except I don’t live in Vermont.....
Get rid of the EC and states like NH, VT, NM, NV, and other small population states would NEVER see a presidential contender.
Instead, NYC, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles and other large cities would elect the president, and most libs/lefties live in large cities.
I just hope the American public is not stupid enough to get rid of the EC. The Founders knew what they were doing and designed it to be cumbersome. It works.
GOP chairman Gleason was the main factor in opposition to this legislation which Gov. Corbett had already pledged to sign
I was at a town hall meeting in March of 2011, right after the pubbies had won the house, senate and gubbernors office in PA and my new congress critter and senator were full of piss and vinegar and told us how the re-apportionment of electoral college votes as well as Voter ID were both slam dunks and would happen by the end of the summer of 2011.
It is now almost a year later, and Pileggi's office now won't even return my emails, my senator cringes when I go into her local office and she is there and the only one that doesn't hide is Congress Critter George Dunbar, because he kept his word and the house passed the Voter ID bill but it is stalled by Pileggi {for some unknown reason}.
The philly rinos in the PA senate are still in control, they should be voted out.
Hear, hear!
It ‘could’ lead to a college football playoff system.
Eliminating the Electoral College will enslave the whole nation to NYC, LA, Chicago and Houston.
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.
I used to believe in the Electoral College. But we got Obama, so why bother having it?
“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”.
Sadly, so true; even the "educated" don't understand, and the pupils can't learn it.
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.
By the time the 1824 election went into the House, Crawford had died of a stroke. That left it between Jackson and Jake Adams.
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.
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.
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.
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.