We may be looking at an electoral college tie

[Secret_Society]

I was just reading a post about Obama possibly picking up Ohio. While I think that will be very difficult it can be done and a strategic VP choice may help. With that in mind I was playing around with the USAToday.com electoral college calculator

If Obama wins

California
Washington
Oregon
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Maine
Vermont
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New York
New Jersey
Delaware
Maryland
D.C.
Pennsylvania
Michigan
Colorado
Nevada

That's 269 if he doesn't capture Ohio, Missouri, NH, or New Mexico. Of course alot of variables but I think it is in the realm of possibility. What happens then? Well then the House would vote with each state delegation getting a vote so we'd be okay, but talk about not having a mandate.

[msongs]

1. maybe...dick cheney? nt

[lisa58]

3. that's the senate

[lisa58]

2. The House of Representatives

[Clear Blue Sky]

30. Correct. It's the House that decides.

[napi21]

4. Congress. That's one of the reasons Gore didn't push for

a solution in Fla. If they couldn't reach a decision, it would have gone to Congress which was controlled by the Pubs then.

[mac2]

6. The VP who was Gore at the time.

He could have voted for himself but wanted to be "fair". Instead we ended up with Bush. Ya...that was fair?

[AllentownJake]

8. Nope

Senate doesn't get to vote. Strictly the House.

[mac2]

11. The VP gets to decide if there is a tie.

[AllentownJake]

15. In the Senate

The VP has no role in the house.

[Hippo_Tron]

16. No, it's in the constitution, the VP has absolutely nothing to do with it

If nobody gets a majority (270) of the electoral college votes then the House of Representatives picks the President. Except that the House doesn't do it by popular vote, they do it by state with each state being equal. So the Representatives from Wyoming and Vermont get to decide for their state whereas all of the Representatives from California and Texas take a vote as to whom their respective states will go to.

If nobody gets a majority for Vice President in the electoral college then the Senate decides by simple majority vote. I suppose if the Senate were tied then the incumbent VP would get to vote in picking the new VP.

[Gore1FL]

24. The Senate votes for the VP in this case

And the House votes for the President.

[Secret_Society]

5. Sorry the title was just a grabber I answered it in the OP...I just wanted discussion on the issue

The house voted by delegation for the President and Senators vote as individuals for the VP

[AllentownJake]

7. The House

decides the President.

[mac2]

9. Ya but the VP breaks the tie.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_elec.html

[AZ Criminal JD]

20. Only in the Senate for VP. Not for President.

[graycem]

10. I heard this scenario on some

news program one day, well a similar one, and they explained the House breaks the tie.

[mac2]

13. Here it is....

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_elec.html

[FARAFIELD]

22. VP can only VOTE IF he is in the top TWO which cheney will not be

Please read.

[hokies4ever]

12. That's why people created political parties

Congress specifically designed the election rules to make it nearly impossible to achieve an electoral college majority for one person. It wasn't foreseeable that one person could get the majority of the electoral votes since people would be voting for a wide variety of candidates. If nobody gets a majority of the electoral votes, then Congress just votes again and everybody is free to choose whoever they like. Quite frankly, even though they were starting a 'great experiment', they didn't trust the people to decide on the Presidency. Political parties became very popular in the USA because people refused to let even elected officials choose the President instead of the people.

This is also part of the reason why it's a 2-party system and will always be a 2-party system. As soon as a 3rd party starts taking electoral votes, then one party may not get a majority of the electoral votes, and then the American people will find out the true definition of corruption.

This is part of the reason why the superdelegate system is despicable. We wouldn't let a select group of people choose the President, so why let them choose a major party nominee, which is as close to choosing the President as one can get. Not to mention that some of the superdelegates are not elected officials right now.

[gateley]

14. Boy - it would almost be par for the course in this campaign. nt

[westerebus]

17. Dump the 12th. amendment.

You give me a presidential candidate willing to dump that travesty of political control and he or she will get my vote. New boss, same as the old boss.

[AZ Criminal JD]

21. Only Congress can change it.

A presidential candidate would have nothing to do with it.

[westerebus]

25. Incorrect.

As the presidential nominee, hence top dog in the party, he or she could and can make reforming this disparity a priority for the congress. Putting democracy back into the hands of the people might be a better place to start then a "tax cut for the middle class". Or has Al Gore's stolen presidency taught us nothing? Or do you prefer the SCOTUS to deliver the presidency as they see fit? For an expanding progressive community with enlightened leadership and broad based bipartisan appeal what's the problem? Democracy by popular vote too much to ask for?

[mac2]

26. The Constitution can only be changed by ratification.

Ratification is by 2/3rds of all the states voting approval. The people in the states vote and decide. It is a long process on purpose. So they won't be changing it everytime we have a new government.

In the time of enlightened citizens and communication a ratification might be added to appoint the President to office by a popular vote. Get rid of the Electoral College since it failed us in 2000. Get rid of the delegates since they are not elected and have more power than the average citizen.

"We the people" might mean just that.

[westerebus]

31. BINGO!! n/t

[mac2]

32. Get rid of "Super Delegates" not delegates.

Since they are not elected. Sorry my mistake.

[MonkeyFunk]

34. Alas, it'll never happen

First, a quibble - it's three fourths of the states that must ratify, not two thirds.

And that's just another factor that mean the electoral college will never go away. Too many small states benefit from it, and they'll never vote to ratify an amendment that takes away their power.

[westerebus]

38. State's party.

The benefit is not ours. Control of and by the state's party severs the status quo. That is not reform. It is of no importance to the will of the majority what the party wants for itself. If those interests do not serve our needs. Politics has become a profession, for some a family business, the longer this continues the greater the divide widens between those who vote and those seeking that vote. If this election is truly about change then start with the transfer of political power back to the people who vote. Are we not educated enough? Are we not informed enough? Are we incapable of choosing a direction other then that set by a corrupt government's self interests? Where is the leadership? It will not come from the right. So it must come from the left.

[MonkeyFunk]

40. I'm not sure what that meant

but it doesn't change the fact that small states are given extra power because of the electoral college, and they will never voluntarily relinquish that extra power. You may as well ask them to make the Senate proportional - it just will NEVER happen.

[westerebus]

45. Small states.

This is not a question of small states loosing power in the general election. It is about the two party's control of elections. This is about majority rule, the simplest form of democracy. Two competing parties have all the power and are not responsive to the will of the voters. Have they impeached bush-co yet? Are we still in Iraq?
You can loose several small states in the general election and still win the white house. There are several ways to loose more then just a few states and still carry the electoral college. Just what is wrong with winning the popular vote to get elected to the Whitehouse? Can the majority of the American people be trusted to pick their President? The electoral college was set up because two people from the same party ran for the whitehouse and both claimed the margin was too close to call. The chances of that happening again are slim, none and non existent.
This is 2008, not 1800. The 12th Amendment was enacted pre civil war. No one was concerned with the civil rights of thousands of native americans, slaves, or any female of any race at that time. I think we have progressed a little from that point in our history. How about we take the next small step and return the vote to the majority.
Now if you're content with the current system, I'm not going to change your mind. Thank you for taking the time to voice your opinion. I respect your argument on states rights. Then again those rights have been known to change given the right leadership.

[MonkeyFunk]

53. This has nothing to do with

whether or not "I'm content with the system". I'm not.

I also recognize that we're never going to abolish the electoral college. And it really doesn't have much to do with parties. It has to do with small states having an advantage because of it.

[williesgirl]

18. I think you should add VA to that list.

[mac2]

33. Take the VA out of the Department of Defence?

Might be a good idea to have it as a sub-agency like it is now but with a better leader and over sight.

[doc03]

19. Don't count your chickens before they hatch, n/t

[Ytzak]

23. Bush did not win the 2000 election and both claimed and ruled

as if he had a mandate.

Bush won the 2004 election with the smallest majority in history, and he still claimed a mandate.

Mandates are overrated. Claim you have one and flip the bird at people who say you don't.

[mac2]

35. Yes we did win but our party leaders did not fight for it.

We even set aside more money to do it in the next election. The House leaders gave Bush the election before all the votes were counted, or recounted and the fraud questioned. No election fraud was punished. It wasn't even discussed by our leaders only by the party members.

If a state such as Ohio has so much election fraud their representation in Congress should be suspended. If they lost representation there would be less fraud. If the Department of Elections can't do their job or are politically one-sided the head should be jailed. It is election fraud and stealing. It should have a high penalty involved to keep them honest.

Elections have to be fair by the parties involved or else they mean little. It is an understanding to have elections instead of revolutions. If elections are corrupt and the people silenced, they will take to the streets. Democracies function well and keep the peace because of the faith in honest elections. Everyone plays by the same rules.

[mac2]

36. If a mandate means nothing why have elections?

It is a vote to have a new agenda or keep it the same.

[BlooInBloo]

27. It's also theoretically possible that a flipped coin land on its side.

[book_worm]

28. It will not be a tie, in the end one or the other will win the electoral vote.

Going by polls of a GE six months from now is not practical. The biggest reason being that Hillary and Obama are the center of attraction and nobody has even engaged McCain yet.

[Thrill]

29. Sorry I just don't buy it. McCain is not going to run that strong around the country

[mac2]

37. I'm not sure I agree.

People who are Republicans say they don't want open borders and illegals. They want English as a national language. They don't want the Americas Union. It's an important mandate and agenda to them.

Did our party say they would do it? McCain even sways back and forth about it. So they will stay with the familiar.

[Carrieyazel]

50. It's possible. If Obama flips those 3 states and McCain just 1 state

(New Hampshire) then you have a 269-269 tie. That would mean McCain doesn't win all of the '04 Shrub states, and only gains 1 Kerry state. That's hardly McCain "running strong." It won't be strong enough for him, because under this scenario, Obama likely gets chosen by the House and wins with 269 EVs.

[AtomicKitten]

39. Obama will put several red states in play, i.e., Virginia, Colorado, etc.

I think too many people are relying on the 2000/2004 template when Obama has created a brand new paradigm by registering a ton of new voters. His path to victory is unprecedented.

[SoCalDem]

41. With Bob Barr & Ron Paul still in it, I can see THIS map

AZ (in case he chooses Napolitano)

and you'll notice I did NOT give us PA, FL or OH..(we'll surely pick up ONE of them)

[underpants]

42. R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N

[Bucky]

43. Probably that would lead to a McCain victory.

We'd have to flip a whole buncha states to win in that case, since in tied elections, the House casts one vote per state. With Republicans dominating small states, the vote would go to them.

[Secret_Society]

44. That's what I thought, but...

Dems actually control more state delegations.

[BzaDem]

46. That depends.

Who controls the most state delegations often has little correlation with who controls the house. There have been several times where they differed. Sometimes, many are tied (and you actually need 26 state delegations that don't tie). Also, remember that it is the NEW house. Hopefully, that will only help us, but you never know.

[Bucky]

60. Here's a graphic of the current make up House delegations

Well, I'll be damned.



27 Democratic delegations
21 Republican
2 evenly split

[Gore1FL]

47. Obama could get 2 from Nebraska.

they are not winner take all.

[Secret_Society]

48. Yes that is true

But to get an elector a candidate needs to win a congressional district and I doubt he will do that. It is not proportional.

[Gore1FL]

49. My understanding

is that he leads in one of them.

[datopbanana]

51. One of the districs is just the county that contains Omaha.

The other 2 include many counties.

Gore/Kerry didn't even come close to winning any of them.

[Gore1FL]

54. I think it is the one with Omaha

don;t get me wrong... I haven't seen recent polling on this. I could be crazy. (I could be right and crazy too, for that matter!!)

[datopbanana]

55. Gore lost it 55-40

Bush 101,025 55.16%
Gore 73,347 40.05%

[datopbanana]

56. Kerry lost it 58-40

Bush 120,813 58.34%
Kerry 83,330 40.24%

[Gore1FL]

57. Fair enough

but there are a lot of states in play this time around. Misery, unhappiness, etc.

Omaha is growing too. bigger cities make for larger Dem turnout, especially when the GOP choice is 4 more years of the least popular Bush policies.

[datopbanana]

58. BO will probably pick up NM so it doesn't matter anyway.

[Gore1FL]

59. I agree

and I am not in any position to argue about NE, because I am in "IIRC" mode.

I bet Sebelius as VP could move some in NE to vote for him.

[datopbanana]

52. Maine is also this way.