269 and 269

[Siegmund]

As many of you may know, it is theoretically possible for the electoral-college vote to be tied, which causes Congress to elect the president (see this US News article for a discussion of how that would pan out in this year's election.)

It's been easy for years to discount this as a very remote chance. But last night, when I checked the latest polls at realclearpolitics.com, that's exactly what the polls showed happening. The particular combination that makes it happen is if Florida, New Mexico, and Wisconsin go for Bush while the other tossup states go for Kerry. And that, frankly, looks like it is one of the most likely outcomes of tomorrow's election. Not a 50-50 chance by any means .... but right now I'd rate it as about a one in five shot.

Anyone else care to lay odds on how likely this "one in a million" chance is to actually happen tomorrow?

 

[Civrules]

If it happened, I don't think many would like it...

 

[cgannon64]

That would be totally awesome!

 

[rilnator]

What is the deal with congress? Is it like each state gets one congressman?

 

[Damnyankee]

then the frogs and the limeys would call our democracy "inferior" and send observers to our elections.

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Bigfoot]

If the electoral college vote results in a tie the election is decided by a vote of the House of Representatives. In that special case each state gets one vote (meaning California with 35 million people has no more pull than N. Dakota, with less than 1 million).

<Edit to correct typo: CA population is approx. 35 million.>

 

[Sanaz]

If the electoral college vote results in a tie the election is decided by a vote of the House of Representatives. In that special case each state gets one vote (meaning California with 53 million people has no more pull than N. Dakota, with less than 1 million).

And it's a Republican landslide victory...

 

[Fetus4188]

What is the deal with congress? Is it like each state gets one congressman?

The president isn't selected by congress, but by the House of Representatives (one branch of Congress), the number of reps. for a state is determined by its population; for example: California has 53 reps and North Dakota has 1. But in this case that does not matter since each state gets one vote.

California does not have 53 million people , what are you smoking?

 

[eyrei]

I still haven't figured out why farmers in the middle of nowhere get a stronger voice than anyone else...just seems...well, wierd.

 

[Stegyre]

What is the deal with congress? Is it like each state gets one congressman?

It's this way: each State gets two Senators, for a 100-member Senate. Senators are elected on a State-wide basis. I.e., in my State, one of the two Senators is up for re-election, and everyone will get to vote for him (or, in my case, against him - not that it will do much good).

The House of Representatives consists of 435 members, and its members are divided up among the States according to population. Thus, a State with a small population (Alaska) has but one Representative. A State with a large population (California) has many. Representatives are not elected on a State-wide basis. Rather, each State is divided into districts - one district for each seat the State holds in the House - and only registered voters in that district may vote for that Representative.

In case of a tie in the electoral college, the House (not the Senate or the combined House and Senate) votes for the next President. However, the voting is not by the number of representatives but by States. I.e., there are 50 votes to be cast: one from each State. Apparently, in States with more than one Representative, they must hold their own mini-vote to decide which way the State votes. That's my own gloss on the 12th Amendment.

 

[Capulet]

If Bush was going to win, I'd rather have him win in the House of Representatives and the Senate choosing Edwards or even KERRY as VP, lol.

 

[Perfection]

Now here's the kicker, the vice-president is picked by the senate if the democrats can achieve a sweeping senatorial victory (which is not out of the realm of possibilities) then we'd end up with Bush as president and Edwards as vice-president. How weird is that?

 

[Tomoyo]

That is just asking for an assasination.

 

[kronic]

Now here's the kicker, the vice-president is picked by the senate if the democrats can achieve a sweeping senatorial victory (which is not out of the realm of possibilities) then we'd end up with Bush as president and Edwards as vice-president. How weird is that?

I hope, that will happen.

But who will be elected first? The president? Could the parties pick other candidates for VP as those who were actually running?

 

[AceChilla]

then the frogs and the limeys would call our democracy "inferior" and send observers to our elections.

There are already observers at your election. From the OVSE, the European organisation for advance of democracy.

And they better be watching real carefully, I think of all the indutrialised western nations in the world the US hold the most crappy organised elections. The OVSE might have to cancel you election outcome, and order you to do it again...

Why is it so hard to do it right? Even frogs and limey's can do it.

 

[Perfection]

Well the twelth ammendment says the vote goes to the two who get the most electoral votes.

 

[Bigfoot]

California does not have 53 million people , what are you smoking?

Dunno, what have you got? After this election I may need some...

 

[M37]

Okay but if the senate gets to chose the VP after the HOR choses the prez who's to say they don't just make Kerry the VP?

 

[Perfection]

I think they can only pick vice-presidental canidates, but I'm not sure.

 

[Stegyre]

I still haven't figured out why farmers in the middle of nowhere get a stronger voice than anyone else...just seems...well, wierd.

Yes, it is "weird," and imho, we only do it that way because it is "set-in-stone" in the Constitution.

You may be interested to know that in many States, the State legislators (i.e., the Representatives and/or Senators who serve at your State capital, rather than in Washington) were once elected on a similar basis: a State was divided geographically (typically by county), and each county might have its own State Senator. This meant that, in terms of representation, one voter in a rural county held many, many times the voting power of a voter in an urban county.

That form of representation was challenged, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional. See Baker v. Carr, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=369&invol=186 This is the famous (for some of us) "one person, one vote" case. To give some perspective, according to my Fed Courts Professor, back when, this was the case identified by Chief Justice Earl Warren as the most significant of his tenure - keep in mind that his tenure also included the perhaps better-known decision Brown v. Board of Education, which ordered the desegregation of public schools.

Anyway, that's probably more than you cared to know. I just hope someone found it interesting.

As for the current system, it is enshrined in the Constitution, and it will require a Constitutional Amendment to change it. Each election cycle, at least some people gripe about it; typically, those who expect their candidate may win the popular vote yet lose the electoral vote. (Those who expect the reverse can gloat, instead.) Imho, as long as everyone knows the rules - and plays by them - we have procedural fairness.

A partial fix to the problem, to at least make the electoral college more representative of the popular vote, would be to divide up each State's electoral votes according to its popular vote. That is a decision that can be made on a State-by-State basis, and some States have chosen to do so. (Regrets: I cannot name any off the top of my head.) The reasons this is not more popular are two-fold. First, whichever party has the power to do this in a particular State has no incentive to do so: they would be essentially giving electoral votes to the opposing party. (This is one of those "power corrupts" problems that disgusts me with both parties.) Second, a State that adopts this approach necessarily loses some influence in the national election. Think about how much Ohio, Florida, and other swing States have been courted by the candidates. Without the winner-take-all system in place most places, the candidates wouldn't have nearly the same incentive to court the voters there rather than the voters of, say, California or Texas.

My apologies for writing too darn much.