NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/27/campaign.tie.reut/index.html

Ooh, now this gets interesting. I have at least one polling site showing this scenario (look at the top numbers only)

http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html

Does anyone have any site which show different numbers here?

It's not even hard to come to. The New York Times lists Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Mexico as still being solid swing states, not leaning to either way, and currently have the electoral count at Bush 227, Kerry 225. Now, if Bush takes Florida, that gives him 254 to Kerry's 225. Give Ohio to Kerry, and it's 254-245. Say Wisconsin goes to Bush. 264-245. Michigan to Kerry, 264-262. New Mexico to Bush and Iowa to Kerry makes it 269-269, a tie. It's quite possible. And frightening.

I tie is in fact almost LIKELY to happen
This scenario is not unthinkable: http://www.upit.dk/u/equal2004.jpg
Does anybody know what will happen then? Is there a rule or a law that states how it will be decided?

The house of reprsentatives then decides who the president will be by their vote of their majority of state reps. (sorry, I realize that its a redundant sentence).

Basically, the house members get together and decide who the electoral college members of their state will select. This is not done on a majority basis, but on a state by state basis, just like a mini-electoral college move.

At present I believe that around 30 of the states in the house are controlled by republicans, but I don't know their total electoral counts. But the betting man would say that it would lead to a Bush win. Maybe if someone wants to tally that up it would be interesting and possibly scary?!

By the way...it would not be based on the incoming house of reps, but on the one that is currently sitting.

If there is another tie in the house of reps, I don't really know what would happen then. It would require a deeper read of the constitution since I doubt anyone has envisioned the scenario going that deep...until now.

Be well.

The house of reprsentatives then decides who the president will be by their vote of their majority of state reps. (sorry, I realize that its a redundant sentence).

Basically, the house members get together and decide who the electoral college members of their state will select. This is not done on a majority basis, but on a state by state basis, just like a mini-electoral college move.

At present I believe that around 30 of the states in the house are controlled by republicans, but I don't know their total electoral counts. But the betting man would say that it would lead to a Bush win. Maybe if someone wants to tally that up it would be interesting and possibly scary?!

By the way...it would not be based on the incoming house of reps, but on the one that is currently sitting.

And senators would choose the vice president, right? So president and vice president can be from different parties. I'm waiting for that to happen...

I tie is in fact almost LIKELY to happen
This scenario is not unthinkable: http://www.upit.dk/u/equal2004.jpg
Does anybody know what will happen then? Is there a rule or a law that states how it will be decided?
Hasn't this happened atleast once before?

Alaska to G.B.? They gotta be insane - he wants to drill for oil there *spit*

Alaska to G.B.? They gotta be insane - he wants to drill for oil there *spit*

Probably because most of them want to drill for oil too, I should imagine. (Esp. now it's at $50 a barrel)

Alaska to G.B.? They gotta be insane - he wants to drill for oil there *spit*Ya gotta remember - Alaskans don't pay state income tax - instead, they get a check (small) from the state of Alaska for their share of the oil profit...more oil, more profit, bigger check.

Not the most environmentally sound thought, but many people vote based on what they believe is best for them personally from an economic standpoint.

I tie is in fact almost LIKELY to happen
This scenario is not unthinkable: http://www.upit.dk/u/equal2004.jpg
Does anybody know what will happen then? Is there a rule or a law that states how it will be decided?
It's not unthinkable, but it's hardly likely--everything has to break exactly one way for there to be a tie, and compared to any other possibility, the chances of a tie are slim. They're better this year than most, but they're still slim.

And senators would choose the vice president, right? So president and vice president can be from different parties. I'm waiting for that to happen...In the early days of the republic (i like the way that sounds...lol) there was no such thing as a "ticket" (Pres candiate + VP candidate). The Presidential Candidate who got the most votes became President, the Presidential Candidate who got the second most became the VP.

Anybody know what would happen after an Electoral tie, followed by another tie in the House?

In the early days of the republic (i like the way that sounds...lol) there was no such thing as a "ticket" (Pres candiate + VP candidate). The Presidential Candidate who got the most votes became President, the Presidential Candiate who got the second most became the VP.

Anybody know what would happen after an Electoral tie, followed by another tie in the House?
Well, a tie would be far less likely in the House, since there's an odd number of members, but my assumption would be that the House would slug it out until they had a winner.

http://straightwords.typepad.com/straightwords_ezine/Bush.jpg
Bush's electoral tie

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/politics/articles/2002-12-01/images/ap_kerry_lg.jpg
Kerry's electoral tie

Hasn't this happened atleast once before?

Jefferson and Burr tied in 1800 or so. Jefferson became president and Burr was made vice president.

Jefferson and Burr tied in 1800 or so. Jefferson became president and Burr was made vice president.
Did they tie or was it just that there wasn't a clear winner? I think one of the candidates had a plurality of the Electoral College, but none had a majority because there were three men receiving electoral votes.

It was a tie in the electoral college. They both had 73 votes

Well, a tie would be far less likely in the House, since there's an odd number of members, but my assumption would be that the House would slug it out until they had a winner.Not so. What happens is NOT a vote of the House Members. There would be 50 little caucus', each one consisting of all the Representatives from a given state. They vote, and determine which candidate gets the electoral votes from their state. Then, the resulting electoral votes for each candidate would be tallied.

So...it is possible for that to result in a tie. Not probable, but possible.

Not so. What happens is NOT a vote of the House Members. There would be 50 little caucus', each one consisting of all the Representatives from a given state. They vote, and determine which candidate gets the electoral votes from their state. Then, the resulting electoral votes for each candidate would be tallied.

So...it is possible for that to result in a tie. Not probable, but possible.Well - I correct myself.

But first: For a pretty decent description of how it all works, go here:

http://jceb.co.jackson.mo.us/fun_stuff/electoral_college.htm

Now, for the correction. In the event of a tie in the Electoral College, the House would caucus by state - but when they cast the votes, it's one per state, NOT the number of electoral votes. And they have to select from among the top 3 vote getters - which shouldn't be an issue, but...

50 states means it is still possible to tie.

And, I have NOT found what they do if that happens. Although, if you read the part about the tie between Jefferson and Burr, it would seem they (the House) might just keep going and going (ala the Energizer Bunny) until someone gets a majority.

And, the Senate choses the VP similary, from among the top 2 vote getters.

Here's a quote from the website:

"To prevent tie votes in the Electoral College which were made probable, if not inevitable, by the rise of political parties (and no doubt to facilitate the election of a president and vice president of the same party), the 12th Amendment requires that each Elector cast one vote for president and a separate vote for vice president rather than casting two votes for president with the runner-up being made vice president. The Amendment also stipulates that if no one receives an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, then the U.S. House of Representatives will select the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority being required to elect. By the same token, if no one receives an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate will select the vice president from among the top two contenders for that office. All other features of the Electoral College remained the same including the requirements that, in order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons", either the presidential or vice presidential candidate has to be from a State other than that of the Electors."

FOUND THIS - House keeps at it until resolved

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/questions.html

"This week's question:
What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 electoral votes?

Answer:
If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each State delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House."

Personally I think the electoral college should be abolished. We should be a democracy. It's not really unfair to give less power to the smaller states because they're less populated. Whoever gets more votes should win. The state you live in is completely irrelevant to the fact that you live in this country and are voting for your president.

Personally I think the electoral college should be abolished. We should be a democracy. It's not really unfair to give less power to the smaller states because they're less populated. Whoever gets more votes should win. The state you live in is completely irrelevant to the fact that you live in this country and are voting for your president.I couldn't agree more.

Kerry would win if tie is reached and bush would need 271 to get 270

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3950495.stm

look at story One man, 115 million votes

The problem with ending the electoral college is that no candidates would ever go to a state like South Dakota, or Wyoming. They would concentrate in the larger states, particularly New York, California, and Flordia since that is where the greatest number of votes is concentrated.

Of course the way it is now, candidates ignore states completely since they are never going to be able to win the majority in the state. New York and California are always going to vote Democrat, and Texas is always republican.


Personally I think electoral votes should be able to be divided up. I don't think it's right how a vote of 51% vs 49% will give all it's votes to the 51%

The problem with ending the electoral college is that no candidates would ever go to a state like South Dakota, or Wyoming. They would concentrate in the larger states, particularly New York, California, and Flordia since that is where the greatest number of votes is concentrated.

Of course the way it is now, candidates ignore states completely since they are never going to be able to win the majority in the state. New York and California are always going to vote Democrat, and Texas is always republican.


Personally I think electoral votes should be able to be divided up. I don't think it's right how a vote of 51% vs 49% will give all it's votes to the 51%There really is no perfect way to elect one man (woman/person) to govern/lead/be-in-charge-of a nation of 290 million.

So, why not go with the popular vote? Not by state. Just, everybody who is qualified and registered gets to vote - and we count them all up, and whoever has the most, wins. End.

The problem with ending the electoral college is that no candidates would ever go to a state like South Dakota, or Wyoming. They would concentrate in the larger states, particularly New York, California, and Flordia since that is where the greatest number of votes is concentrated.


I don't get why this is seen as a problem by so many people. It would just mean that they would campaign for the most people. I.e, the largest number of people possible would be campaigned to. As opposed to now, where a handful of small states get all the action and the majorities of California and New York and Texas get nothing.

The problem with ending the electoral college is that no candidates would ever go to a state like South Dakota, or Wyoming. They would concentrate in the larger states, particularly New York, California, and Flordia since that is where the greatest number of votes is concentrated.

this is actually what happens under the electoral college. nobody does go to small states, or they do so only very infrequently - like one of them once per campaign. in fact, this problem is greatly exaggerated by the electoral college because it greatly concentrates the payoff of campaigning in a big state by treating it as if the winning candidate had gotten votes from every single person in california, instead of just 25% of them. this means that the electoral college actually hurts the small states and grants even more power to the big ones at their expense. mathematically it works out that this system essentially gives each voter in california the equivalent of 4 votes, and 2.6 for each texan, while people in the smallest states only get one. the electoral college literally makes any particular small state utterly irrelevant, basically statistical noise.

check out this paper, which explains the math involved:
http://www.eleves.ens.fr:8080/home/madore/misc/us-voting.html

As opposed to now, where a handful of small states get all the action and the majorities of California and New York and Texas get nothing.

but on the other hand, that isn't true in the slightest. big and medium states get all of the action currently - small states get the shaft. a problem that is actually increased by the electoral college.

With the ability to televise / broadcast debates, with the massive ad campaigns, with the internet, etc, etc, etc...why does anybody care if the candidate visits a particular state?

What matters is - what are they saying. What do the mean when they say it? What will they do if elected? What is their plan, what is their platform, what do they stand for, how will that effect you, me, us, them, the economy, the environment, the world in general...?

And...does my vote count? Or at least, does it count equally with yours? And everyone's vote would count equally (and be of equal importance to all the candidates) if we eliminate the electoral college, and elect the president (and vp) on the popular vote of the entire United States.

This would also mean that candidates would be equally as interested in the vote of every registered voter - whether they are in a big state, small state, city, town, country...because the candidates couldn't count on "blocks" of votes, as they do now with the electoral college. They would have to "court" every single vote. Mine. Yours.

I like that thought.

but on the other hand, that isn't true in the slightest. big and medium states get all of the action currently - small states get the shaft. a problem that is actually increased by the electoral college.

Actually, certain large/medium states; the curious situation of states whose votes are fairly predictable (i.e., not reflective of the national system on the whole) means that it is the states whose votes are not predictable and carry weight are visited. Frankly, one of the reasons why small states are not visited by politicians more than once or twice is that most "small" states have been generally considered to be strongly in the camp of one party or the other. There are very few 3 or 4 electoral vote state that have not been generally considered "safe" states in any remotely close election (New Hampshire comes to mind as a swing state... as a contrast to Hawaii, Alaska, Delaware, Vermont, Wyoming, Montana, Maine, South Dakota, North Dakota, DC, and Idaho).

North Carolina and Georgia, for example, are two of the most populous states of "the south," with 15 EVs each; neither is a particularly heavy campaign target, thanks to a long recent history of Republican victories; this is in spite of the fact that North Carolina often elects democratic senators, governors, and house reps, and has a state government usually under local Democratic control. Nor, for that matter, are highly populous but very "safe" New York, Texas, and California campaigned in very much at all, as far as I can tell.

Big states are getting the shaft too though. California, New York and Texas are not campaigned in at all. Being in New York, my vote means crap since the state is going for John Kerry.

Now that I think about it, spliting up the vote of each state in the college is basically the same as just going by the popular vote, So I think we should just go by the popular vote. Campaigning isn't too important anyways. I see the debates on TV, and anything else I need to know I can find in the newspaper. Theres no reason I should actually need to see the candidate

Actually, certain large/medium states; the curious situation of states whose votes are fairly predictable (i.e., not reflective of the national system on the whole) means that it is the states whose votes are not predictable and carry weight are visited. Frankly, one of the reasons why small states are not visited by politicians more than once or twice is that most "small" states have been generally considered to be strongly in the camp of one party or the other. There are very few 3 or 4 electoral vote state that have not been generally considered "safe" states in any remotely close election (New Hampshire comes to mind as a swing state... as a contrast to Hawaii, Alaska, Delaware, Vermont, Wyoming, Montana, Maine, South Dakota, North Dakota, DC, and Idaho).

North Carolina and Georgia, for example, are two of the most populous states of "the south," with 15 EVs each; neither is a particularly heavy campaign target, thanks to a long recent history of Republican victories; this is in spite of the fact that North Carolina often elects democratic senators, governors, and house reps, and has a state government usually under local Democratic control. Nor, for that matter, are highly populous but very "safe" New York, Texas, and California campaigned in very much at all, as far as I can tell.

oddly enough, until clinton took it in 92, california hadn't voted democratic since the goldwater campaign.

but yeah, lots of emphasis is placed on big and medium swing states. though people do still spend a ton of time and money in their own big safe states, and the opposing candidate will visit the opponents big and medium safe states more often than their own small safe states. i don't have numbers on it, but i am absolutely positive that bush has made more trips to ca or ny than he has to idaho. the point though, is that as a candidate you spend almost no time shoring up support in your small states or winning over the others. their votes just aren't worth the effort when you can still take ohio.

A freak tie result in the U.S. presidential election could mean the House of Representatives would choose the next president, a scenario that would favor Republican incumbent Bush. But since the Senate would decide the vice presidency, Bush could end up with Democrat John Edwards.

Oi, now that'd be something. Hmm, hey it would get rid of Cheney, good stuff. Heh.

Hasn't this happened atleast once before?

Yes it has. During Jefferson's first election. It took somewhere along the lines of 3-4 House of Rep. roll call votes to resolve this issue. I am a little fuzzy on the details. Maybe some American History major can give you a more detailed answer.

Yes it has. During Jefferson's first election. It took somewhere along the lines of 3-4 House of Rep. roll call votes to resolve this issue. I am a little fuzzy on the details. Maybe some American History major can give you a more detailed answer.You can read about it here...

http://jceb.co.jackson.mo.us/fun_stuff/electoral_college.htm

In part, it says

"One of the accidental results of the development of political parties was that in the presidential election of 1800, the Electors of the Democratic-Republican Party gave Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr (both of that party) an equal number of electoral votes. The tie was resolved by the House of Representatives in Jefferson's favor - but only after 36 tries and some serious political dealings which were considered unseemly at the time. Since this sort of bargaining over the presidency was the very thing the Electoral College was supposed to prevent, the Congress and the States hastily adopted the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution by September of 1804."

That (edwards veep) would only be if the majority changes in the senate Imo, though jeffords can be counted on to cast for the democratic candidate.

Regarding abolishing the electoral college. Forget about it...The small states will never let it happen and you will need their votes to pass them amendment probably...I say probably since it would take 2/3 of the states to get such an amendment passed and I doubt you are going to get any candidate to run on such a platform since its political suicide. Something like that would have to be 'grass roots' with an MLK (or someone of that rallying stature, race is irrelevant, that is just the first name that came to mind) type figure leading such a movement. Yeah...not gonna happen imo.

I still predict that an electoral tie is a guarantee of 4 more years. But who really knows...the polls are quite volatile this cycle and its driving the samplers crazy. It could go anywhere from a complete landslide either way to surprises in states that seemed like locks a week ago. Cells phones and caller-ID have really made the data questionable. The two options are to drink a whole lot of coffee or two just crash and wake up on the 3rd to see who (supposedly) won.

Then the recounts begin...either way...december 12(? iirc) is the "drop-dead" date and we will know who won by then.

Be well.

Check this out.

http://techcentralstation.com/101404A.html

Makes me want to cheer for a tie.

Anyone but Bush or Kerry!

That (edwards veep) would only be if the majority changes in the senate Imo, though jeffords can be counted on to cast for the democratic candidate.
Right now the Senate is 51-49 (counting Jeffords as a Democrat, since he votes with them on party issues). If the Dems take one seat, Cheney will just break the tie and re-elect himself (wouldn't that make for great parody? :p) If the Dems take two seats, they can place Edwards as Veep, which would be useful in such a divided Senate, considering several Democrats are hardly Democrats at all and vote against the party (Robert Byrd comes to mind).

Regarding abolishing the electoral college. Forget about it...The small states will never let it happen and you will need their votes to pass them amendment probably...I say probably since it would take 2/3 of the states to get such an amendment passed and I doubt you are going to get any candidate to run on such a platform since its political suicide. Something like that would have to be 'grass roots' with an MLK (or someone of that rallying stature, race is irrelevant, that is just the first name that came to mind) type figure leading such a movement. Yeah...not gonna happen imo.
Why would the small states oppose it? Particularly the lightly populated Rocky Mountain and Plains states, which are overwhelmingly Republican. Their votes are irrelevant. Abolishing the electoral college would give them some say...they might be able to swing the election...

Honestly, the only states who would oppose abolishing the electoral college are the "battlegrounds" that are happy with all the attention and candidate-pandering they get. But I'm sure New York is just as unhappy as Wyoming that no candidate ever appeals to their votes.

I still predict that an electoral tie is a guarantee of 4 more years. But who really knows...the polls are quite volatile this cycle and its driving the samplers crazy. It could go anywhere from a complete landslide either way to surprises in states that seemed like locks a week ago. Cells phones and caller-ID have really made the data questionable. The two options are to drink a whole lot of coffee or two just crash and wake up on the 3rd to see who (supposedly) won.
An electoral tie WILL mean 4 more years...although Cheney's not so safe. Polls are volatile...haha. New Mexico shifted by 18% in one week according to Zogby. Screw polls. :p

News flash: IF WV goes W the Republican mayor of South Charleston is indicating that he will have trouble voting for Bush (he is an elector) and if it is a tie, that means 269-268 favoring Kerry