I'm starting to wonder if the 2016 election could be a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College.

[StevieM]

In a very close race the swing states will be as follows:

New Hampshire
Virginia
Ohio
Iowa
Wisconsin
Colorado
Nevada

If the Democratic candidate wins New Hampshire, Ohio and Wisconsin, while the Republican candidate wins Colorado, Nevada, Virginia and Iowa, then the race is tied 269 to 269.

If the GOP puts Brian Sandoval on the ticket then that could help them win Nevada. If they nominate Scott Walker to run for president then I think our chances of winning Wisconsin are either helped or at worst stay the same.

Hopefully we will win in a landslide rendering this whole conversation moot.

http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bIpi

[tritsofme]

1. Presidential elections don't happen in a vacuum.

If Republicans are winning in Virginia and Iowa, the national environment would likely suggest that they are also winning states like Ohio. The reverse is also true, and that's what makes these scenarios so unlikely.

[randys1]

2. If Americans are allowed to vote, there will be no issue

If the votes are counted by independent honest people, there will be no issue

But neither of these are to be taken for granted, in fact as we speak the newly elected republican governors are drafting unconstitutional, anti American laws to stop minorities from voting.

I dont know if we can avoid a confrontation.

[SheilaT]

3. Don't you think it's a bit early to worry about that?

And nearly every election cycle someone points out how that could happen, and so far it never has. Doesn't mean it never will, but it's pretty unlikely.

More to the point, the electoral college is why campaigning during the presidential campaign is very strategic, and aimed at winning precisely the states that will garner the best EC advantage.

[Travis_0004]

5. 1800 was a tie

Although I agree with you. Its not worth worrying about.

[SheilaT]

7. 1800. That was our fourth election, right?

Much smaller country, smaller electorate -- white men of property only. Not sure it's exactly an example that holds up 216 years later.

Wait. According to Wikipedia Thomas Jefferson got 61.4% of the vote and 73 electoral votes. 70 were needed to win His opponent John Adams got 38.6% of the vote and 65 electoral votes. What tie?

[roamer65]

10. The tie was between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr.

[yellowcanine]

13. Yes way to early and unlikely to happen so we have better things to worry about.

Like how to win the Senate back in 2016 and win 300+ electoral votes.

[W_HAMILTON]

4. Well, that makes me a little more optimistic about 2016.

Because at least under your scenario, that means the Republicans would have to win Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, Iowa, AND at least one of New Hampshire/Ohio/Wisconsin.

And, yeah, I just don't see that happening.

God bless "the Blue Wall" states. They basically ensure that Democrats start out at 242 electoral votes, meaning their path to victory is much, MUCH easier than Republicans. Republicans almost assuredly won't be able to pull off the scenario described above, which would be required if they were to win under your hypothetical.

[StevieM]

6. I think that Ohio looks very strong for the Dems in a presidential election given the anti-labor

bent of the GOP. They are more hostile than ever towards organized labor and that will hurt them in 2016, even if they do well in other battlegrounds.

And if Scott Walker is the GOP nominee then I think we can beat him in Wisconsin. Same for Paul Ryan.

New Hampshire is a notoriously difficult state to predict.

And I think the growing Latino populations in Colorado and Nevada are making them increasingly good states for Democrats.

[roamer65]

8. That means we would have to regain the majority in the House.

In a 269-269 tie, I do believe it would be the newly seated House that would vote on the presidency.

I expect it would be just as nasty or worse than the Hayes-Tilden election of 1876.

[Art_from_Ark]

18. Well, in the case of Hayes-Tilden,

the South agreed to accept the Republicans' theft of the election in exchange for the North agreeing to end Reconstruction.

[Angleae]

22. It wouldn't necessarily be the newly seated house that votes.

They could take such a vote any time after the electoral college submits their votes which is the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (3 USC, Sec 7). Also the voting gets kinda weird, each state only gets 1 vote, that vote is decided by the majority vote of the representatives of that state (12th amendment).

[roamer65]

23. It's where the Rethug gerrymandering would become painfully obvious. N/t.

[Boom Sound 416]

9. No florida?

[W_HAMILTON]

12. I'm thinking...

...that Florida would have to be given to the Republicans for them to even get to 269 without those other states in the hypothetical.

And that's another good reason this thread has actually made me happy about 2016 When you have to give all these toss-up states to the Republicans to even get them to a fighting chance at winning the presidency, that's a good thing. Republicans almost have to have a WAVE election just to win the presidency; and I'm not talking 2010/2014 "wave," they'd need like a 2008 wave. And I just don't see the country swinging that far to the right.

[Boom Sound 416]

15. I can see that.

Good answer

[Gman]

11. Hillary will have 400+ electoral votes.

It's a moot point.

[StevieM]

20. Agreed. (eom)

[MineralMan]

14. I wonder if I'll win the Powerball lottery

This Saturday. Seems about as likely.

[jwirr]

16. And if it does it will end up in Congress for them to decide. God help us.

[Takket]

17. the same 8 states (including florida) pick the president every election cycle

isn't it time to get rid of the electoral college?

the votes of the vast majority of the electorate don't even seem to count.

[Art_from_Ark]

19. Well, mine certainly doesn't count

If there isn't a Southern governor on the Democratic ticket, then my state will vote red by a wide margin.

[Comrade Grumpy]

21. Get back to me in a hundred weeks. n/t