Could Next Tie Doom Electoral College?

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

[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.

[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?

[GOPsterinMA]

“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 (...).”

Chazz should pull it out.

[AuH2ORepublican]

“Chazz should pull it out.”

---

As long as he doesn’t show it to me, I won’t object.

[AuH2ORepublican]

In my post #41 5 days ago, I wrote that “every schoolboy knows (or at least should know) that Jefferson had been tied in the Electoral College with his own VP candidate, Aaron Burr.”

Well, this morning, I received an e-mail from National Review with a link to a 1964 NR article by James Jackson Kilpatrick on how the Constitution would not prohibit Dwight Eisenhower from running for VP that year (NR’s website features articles from a different, old edition every week), and the article included this explanation for what prompted the adoption of the 12th Amendment (which, inter alia, requires that electors cast separate votes for president and VP):

“Jefferson and Burr, as every schoolboy knows, wound up with equal votes. The election was thrown into the House, where with Hamilton’s help Jefferson was chosen.”

I swear that I had not read that article until this morning, and that my use of the phrase “as every schoolboy knows” was due to the notoriety of the House vote to settle the 1800 presidential election, which was an important part of history and has traditionally been covered in high school U.S. history courses. So I believe that Mr. Kilpatrick would be just as shocked as I was to find out that someone writing on Townhall about the post-1800-election House vote could believe that the House vote was between Jefferson and Adams.

[Impy]

We’ve talked about that former 2 term President as VP thing, I forget what your position was.

Could you send me that link? (if the content is free, I’m cheap ;) ). I love old political articles. I once strained to try and read the text of the “Dewey Defeats Truman” front page articles from an image of it. From what I could make out they were figuring we’d keep Congress as well so those early returns were sure crap.

I remember when I was a teen my mom had a “Human Events” subscription and they occasionally had “Classic” articles, they used to be online I don’t think they are anymore. One was an analysis of the 1952 Senate landscape, the author wanted “Nationalist” Kennedy to beat the “Internationalist” Lodge. I’m sure Lodge would compare to the worst DIABLOS of today but to stop Kennedy I would have voted for him with enthusiasm and then put on a fake beard and pretended to be a neighbor so I could vote for him again.

[AuH2ORepublican]

Here’s the link to the article: http://www.nationalreview.com/nroriginals/?q=YTA1NGE3ZjFkM2MyZjU4YWNmZWY2M2UwY2JmZjYyN2U=&w=MA

My position is that, indeed, a two-term president may run for vice president.

[AuH2ORepublican]

BTW, this fascinating book about potential constitutional crises involving the presidency has a chapter regarding what would happen if a two-term president runs for VP: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/constitutional-cliffhangers-brian-c-kalt/1102711854

[Impy]

Thank you.

[JediJones]

Pennsylvania p*ssed away a wonderful opportunity to shake up the electoral math when the GOP controlled Senate and House failed to support Sen. Dominic Pileggi's bill to allocate our electors on the same basis as Maine and Nebraska: 2 for the state, 1 for each congressional district.

Which kind of illustrates the difference you'll get between a true conservative reformer like Newt and the go-along-to-get-along crowd (Rick going along with GOP elites, Mitt going along with any liberal coalition available). If anything would remotely upset the apple cart of the establishment, you won't see it coming from Rick or Mitt.

[JediJones]

I’m surprised libs haven’t brought back the Equal Rights Amendment. It came really close to passing in the ‘80s, didn’t it? In these far more politically correct times it would probably pass in a landslide. And as Schlafly said, it would serve as a stealth method to getting the courts to institute gay marriage.

[GOPsterinMA]

I concur!