In the event of a tie in the Electoral College, Barack Obama will be our next President, according to the Politico’s David Mark. Although not too likely, there is a plausible scenario this year in which both Barack Obama and John McCain end up with 269 Electoral Votes. In this situation, the House of Representatives decides who will become President.
Here’s the most likely scenario for a tie: Give Obama the 252 electoral votes John Kerry won for the Democrats in 2004, and add to those New Mexico (5) and Iowa (7), which narrowly went for President Bush in 2004 after backing Al Gore in 2000, and traditionally Republican Colorado (9), where changing demographics favor Obama. Subtract New Hampshire(4), renowned for its independent streak and where voters in Republican primaries have twice favored McCain over establishment-backed and better-funded candidates, and it amounts to 269-269.
But the House doesn’t simply take an up or down vote. Instead, each state delegation gets one vote. Democrats hold a majority in most state delegations, and will likely increase their holdings this year (it is the incoming House of Representatives that selects the President).
But no matter the breakdown, it’s a good bet that a 269-269 tie would result in an Obama victory in the House, where the Constitution gives each state’s delegation one vote. The vote of California’s 53 members, for example, could be canceled out by North Dakota’s one-member delegation. In the current 110th Congress, Democrats control 26 state delegations to the Republicans’ 22, while two are tied. And with Democrats poised to pick up seats in the fall elections, that margin is likely to increase.
What the article didn’t mention is perhaps the most interesting outcome. If the House of Representatives cannot select the President (if there is a 25-25 tie) then the Presidency goes to the Speaker of the House. We would have President Nancy Pelosi. A liberal Democrat from San Francisco would be President. How do you think Republicans would feel about that result?
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Under the National Popular Vote bill, one presidential candidate is guaranteed to get a majority of the nation’s electoral votes. Under the bill, all of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC. The legislation would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (270 of 538). So, the winning candidate will always get at least 270 electoral votes. Therefore will never be a tie in the electoral votes and never be a situation in which no candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes. Hence the election of the President would never be thrown into the U.S. House (with each state casting one vote) and the election of the Vice President would never be thrown into the U.S. Senate.
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn’t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule which awards all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state. Because of this rule, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. Two-thirds of the visits and money are focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money goes to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people are merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect. The bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Leave a Comment