The 269-269 scenario

Want another reason to focus on the House? It may very well decide the next president of the United States.

It works like this. If the Electoral College deadlocks at 269-269 (say, Kerry holds the Gore states plus NH and WV), the election is thrown to the House of Representatives. There, each delegation gets a single vote. So, how does the House currently look?

Alabama: 5R, 2D
Alaska: 1R
Arizona: 6R, 2D
Arkansas: 1R, 3D
California: 20R, 33D
Colorado: 5R, 2D
Connecticut: 3R, 2D
Delaware: 1R
Florida: 18R, 7D
Georgia: 8R, 5D
Hawaii: 2D
Idaho: 2R
Illinois: 10R, 9D
Indiana: 6R, 3D
Iowa: 4R, 1D
Kansas: 3R, 1D
Kentucky: 4R, 2D
Louisiana: 4R, 3D
Maine: 2D
Maryland: 2R, 6D
Massachusetts: 10D
Michigan: 9R, 6D
Minnesota: 4R, 4D
Mississippi: 2R, 2D
Missouri: 5R, 4D
Montana: 1R
Nebraska: 3R
Nevada: 2R, 1D
New Hampshire: 2R
New Jersey: 6R, 7D
New Mexico: 2R, 1D
New York: 10R, 19D
North Carolina: 7R, 6D
North Dakota: 1D
Ohio: 12R, 6D
Oklahoma: 4R, 1D
Oregon: 1R, 4D
Pennsylvania: 12R, 7D
Rhode Island: 2D
South Carolina: 4R, 2D
South Dakota: vacant
Tennessee: 4R, 5D
Texas: 16R, 16D
Utah: 2R, 1D
Vermont: 1Ind
Virginia: 7R, 4D
Washington: 3R, 6D
West Virginia: 1R, 2D
Wisconsin: 4R, 4D
Wyoming: 1R

That's 30 states with Republican-majority delegations, 15 with Democratic-led delegations, four deadlocked, and one vacant (SD).

Now, a handful of assumptions. 1) Representatives will vote their party. It's not inconceivable to see Reps voting their district's presidential vote. Especially for those in at-large seats, like Delaware or North Dakota. Rather than let this get too complicated, we'll assume 100 percent party loyalty. 2) Split delegations will vote their state's presidential vote. Assuming Dem victories in MN and WI (necessary for this scenario) would put us at 31-17. And, 3) Texas will be a Republican-dominated state in 2005, leaving us at 32-17.

Here we go. A Herseth victory would put us at 32-18. Taking Tauzin's LA seat in a special election following his resignation would give us the Louisiana delegation, and the score is then 31-19.

Now, Colorado has two top-40 races targeting Republican incumbents. We get those, and it's 30-20. Connecticut has one targeted GOP incumbent. We win it, and it's 29-21. Georgia has 2-3 targeted Republicans. We win those, and its 28-22. Indiana has at least two at-risk Republicans. We get those, it's 27-23. New Mexico has two targeted races. We win just one of them, and it's 26-24.

Then what? That's far-fetched enough, but if we're in fantasy land, we might as well win an improbable seat in Illinois to take over that delegation. 25-25.

So if the impossible happened and everything broke the Dems' way, we'd whittle down a 30-15 disadvantage to parity. And all hell would break loose in the House. At that point, in-district dynamics would play a large role in determining the president.

But as noted, nearly every targeted race in CO, CT, GA, IL, IN, LA, NM and SD would have to break our way just to deadlock the House down partisan lines.

So the moral of the story? Let's win those seats to at least make things interesting in the House. But realistically? Kerry better get more than 269.

•  aoeu

  What would happen if it stayed tied at 25-25?  I bet O'Connor knows.

  by TealVeal on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 05:59:04 AM PDT

  •  sdf

    If the House can't come to a majority (not just if there's a tie), things really get interesting.

    Let's look at the VP first.  In case of an electoral college tie or non-majority, a simple majority vote is taken by the Senate to choose a vice-president; a 50-50 tie would be broken by the VP.

    But here's the catch: there is no deadline for the House to choose a president.  Let's say it's a Kerry-Edwards ticket and there's a non-majority in the electoral college and the House.  The Senate goes GOP, or it goes 50-50 and Cheney breaks the tie by voting for himself.  If the House doesn't resolve its own tie for president by inauguration on January 20th, we look to the 20th amendment, which says that the current vice-president "shall act as President until a President shall have qualified."  Vice President Cheney would act as President until the House comes to a resolution.  That can happen at any time during that presidential term of office.  The final kicker: there's no rule that the president and VP have to be of the same party.  So, if the tie in the House breaks for Kerry, we could have a Kerry presidency and a Cheney vice-presidency.

    Now wouldn't that be fun? =D

    by saranwarp on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 06:24:02 AM PDT

    •  aoeu

      I wonder if the NE Republican Senators would vote for Cheney as VP, Zell probably would.
      

      by TealVeal on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 06:31:12 AM PDT

      •  no Zell vote

        Well, it is the New Congress that will vote.  Mr Miller's term will have expired and he will have no vote.

        by jimsaco on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 03:04:52 PM PDT

        •  aoeu

          Good point.

          by TealVeal on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 04:34:53 PM PDT

    •  Hm - 50/50 is no veep

      Scratches head. According to the 12th (or was it the 20th?) amendment, the veep shall be elected by the new Senate, and "a majority of the whole number of Senators" is the requirement, i.e. you need 51 Senators to vote for the veep, or there is no deal. There is no tie-breaking mechanism in there. Cheney cannot vote for himself. OK, it is extremely unlikely that both the electoral college, and the house (by state delegations), and the Senate should be tied at the same time. But theory is ... funny in its own right.

      I guess that in the case of the House solving the Presidential election, and the Senate being tied 50-50 in the veep election, at least one Senator would defer to the House, making it 51-49.

      OK, I admit this is geeky. But I'm a geek. :)

      by PoliticGeek Pro on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 07:44:03 PM PDT

      •  My reading of the 20th amendment,

        If they can't pick a prez or a VP congress can pick whoever the hell they want as a temp president, or they can decide on a "manner in which one who is to act shall be selected".  I guess that means they would hold a special election for a temporary president?

        by permanentE on Fri Mar 05, 2004 at 04:45:00 PM PDT

        •  "As set forth by law"...

          Fair point. But wouldn't that mean a law must be passed and signed? No President, no law...

          And it could be filibustered in the Senate.

          I guess in the situation where there are three ties (electoral college, House delegations, Senate), and no President or veep elected pr Jan 20, noon, the current law of succesion would kick in, hence the House Speaker becomes temporary President until sausages are made and the situation is resolved. :)

          by PoliticGeek Pro on Fri Mar 05, 2004 at 07:29:44 PM PDT

  •  269 tie means fund presidential race

    Under this 269 scenario, it's more important than ever to directly fund the presidential race, not house races. In 2000, we saw the problem of trying to win indirectly. Kerry and DNC will need every penny to beat Bush. Give through Kos's ePatriots program so he can blog directly from the convention. https://www.democrats.org/epatriots/give.html?sourcecode=P000015

    by dncdoug on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 08:20:54 AM PDT

•  Too unlikely...

  And in that case the election will lack all legitimacy in any case.  People are not going to tolerate the House electing the president when the popular vote winner will be clear.  I really hope if this happens there's a huge backlash against the electoral college (there should have been last time).  Giving backward, rural areas a disproportionate amount of influence is absurd, considering it's the big metropolitan areas that drive our culture and our economy.  

  by Asak on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 06:05:29 AM PDT

  •  Northeast Liberal

    ..is a perjoritive used to appeal to the worst fears of rural voters about the mostly urban areas of New York and New England.

    Calling out "backward, rural areas"  is bigoted and wrong. It's wrong when the GOP stereotypes Americans and it's wrong when Dems do it as well.

    by joejoejoe on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 06:30:43 AM PDT

    •  Too bad

      It's the truth.  Sometimes it hurts.

      California has an economy by itself that's 5th largest in the world.  How big is the economy of Kansas?

      by Asak on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 06:46:02 AM PDT

      •  Anyway...

        My point isn't that those areas shouldn't be allowed to vote, but why should the vote of people in those areas count more than those in more populous states.  If anything an argument can be made for it to be the other way around, but straight up one man, one vote is fine with me.  

        by Asak on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 06:58:21 AM PDT

        •  Just to say

          Pointlessly offending people (some of whom could be your allies in progressive causes) is somewhat counterproductive.  

          I agree totally about getting rid of the electoral college.  and I'll raise you by getting rid of the Senate.

          by Preston on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 11:29:16 AM PDT

      •  Does that really mean they're backward in Kansas?

        Oh, to be the sophisticated, forward-looking voters who voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger.  
        

        by Preston on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 11:26:48 AM PDT

        •  No, but...

          The refusal to teach evolution in Kansas means they're backward.

          Whatever happened with that, anyway?  Is that crap still going on?

          by Sean Robertson on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 12:58:55 PM PDT

          •  Yeah

            Yeah, and the anti-gay marriage Constitutional Convention in Massachusetts is evidence that they're backwards.  

            There's nothing to be gained for progressives in tossing away entire regions of the country.  One of the geniuses of Howard Dean (and Kucinich has spoken this way) was the attempt to reach across established divisions to find new allies.  

            by Preston on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 01:19:51 PM PDT

          •  Well ...

            Last time I checked, Kansas had a Dem woman governor ... back at ya, Californian

            by wystler on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 02:52:07 PM PDT

      •  Just curious

        Asak, I'm guessing you've lived in a rural area, at least at some point in your life.

        Doesn't it bother you at all to generalize from that experience?

        It's true that rural areas tend to be more culturally conservative. But they also tend to be where all the capital-P Progressive movements in this country have historically started.

        by Bill Rehm on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 11:59:24 AM PDT

  •  You're probably right

    A second straight election where the electoral college failed to represent the popular will would probably kill the college for good. I think a combination of 9/11 and the freakish nature of the last election prevented it from formingthe movement we thought it would at the time, but two straight elections would probably bring about some amendments.

    That being said, I seriously doubt it's going to happen. While there's a fairly plausible scenario (the WV/NH one) it seems more than likely that more states than that will change hands.

    by Ben Grimm on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 11:37:21 AM PDT

    •  Freakish nature...

      ...the electoral college worked just how it was supposed to.  In fact, there have been four times (IIRC) that the EC has not followed the popular vote, and the last two times the popular vote for each candidate has been within one percent of each other.

      What was freakish was florida's election/recount laws, disenfranchisement of florida voters, the Republican party hijacking the courts, and the SCOTUS inserting its federal nose into a state recount issue.

      Don't blame the electoral college for that.

      by pauldean on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 12:53:35 PM PDT

  •  And you wonder....

    "Backward rural areas"  hmm...and you wonder, with these comments and attitudes, why Democrats have such a hard time winning in the south and rural areas? hmm..weird.

    by SoonerSig on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 11:39:14 AM PDT

  •  The College Isn't Going Anywhere

    People are not going to tolerate the House electing the president when the popular vote winner will be clear.

    I don't see any reason to think they'll refuse to tolerate the House electing a President per the Constitution when they routinely tolerate the Electors electing a President per the Constitution.

    Hell, in 1824, Andrew Jackson won the popular vote and he received the most Electoral College votes.  And the House still elected John Quincy Adams, who finished 2nd in both popular and Electoral votes.

    I really hope if this happens there's a huge backlash against the electoral college (there should have been last time).  Giving backward, rural areas a disproportionate amount of influence is absurd, considering it's the big metropolitan areas that drive our culture and our economy.

    The Electoral College benefits the majority of states; ie, it benefits states with smaller populations that the national average.  And three-fourths (ie, 38) states are required to amend the Constitution.  There is no way you're going to get a couple of dozen states to ratify an Amendment that lessens their influence in Presidential politics.  I just don't see any way the Electoral College is ever chucked.

    by Collideascope on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 12:01:59 PM PDT

    •  Not to mention

      that for the same reasons it benefits the smaller states, it benefits the Repugs; they have most of the smaller states in their base.  2000 was a perfect example of that effect.

      by Superribbie on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 12:30:44 PM PDT

      •  College Bias

        Which is another reason we'll never get the Electoral College discarded; it is likely to at any given time be biased towards one of the two parties, which eliminates that party as an interested ... um, 'party' ... in getting rid of the College.

        by Collideascope on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 03:17:35 PM PDT

        •  Yes, Small states are mostly red

          Small blue states (single digit EVs): 9

          Small red states(single digit EVs): 18

          So, at the moment, the GOP stands to lose by getting rid of the electoral college.

          by PoliticGeek Pro on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 03:58:07 PM PDT

    •  A Modest Proposal

      I don't see any reason to think they'll refuse to tolerate the House electing a President per the Constitution when they routinely tolerate the Electors electing a President per the Constitution.

      Hell, in 1824, Andrew Jackson won the popular vote and he received the most Electoral College votes.  And the House still elected John Quincy Adams, who finished 2nd in both popular and Electoral votes.

      And Quincy Adams was widely viewed as an illegitmate president, and the outrage fueled Andrew Jackson's overwhelming victory in 1828.  

      Sound familiar?

      It'd be better if we fixed the Electoral College so that we don't elect illegitimate presidents.  

      There is no way you're going to get a couple of dozen states to ratify an Amendment that lessens their influence in Presidential politics.

      True, so mend it, don't end it.  Adding a bonus of 5 electoral votes to the popular vote winner would still require candidates to go state-by-state.  

      Instead of 270, you'd need 272 to win, so for the popular vote bonus to be decisive a candidate would have to get 267 in the first place.  

      Plus adding an odd-numbered electoral bonus would solve the problem of a possible tie in the Electoral College.  

      A 5 electoral vote bonus would've elected Gore in 2000 and Tilden in 1876 without changing the state-by-state nature of the electoral college.

      A 5 electoral vote bonus would not have changed the result in 1824 (because 4 different candidates received electoral votes) or in 1888 (because Benjamin Harrison had 32 more electoral votes than needed to win despite losing the popular vote).  

      It would have taken a popular vote bonus of 32 to fix the 1824 election; and it would have taken a whopping bonus of 66 electoral votes to make the 1888 election conform to the popular vote.  

      A popular vote bonus of 32 or 66 is so high that it in practice make the Electoral College an empty vessel for the popular vote - hence no small state would ever agree to that.  

      by gregabbott on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 01:07:17 PM PDT

      •  Excellent

        It could be any of these numbers: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9. Are there any such resoutions proposed in Congress?

        by PoliticGeek Pro on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 01:11:05 PM PDT

      •  Good point...

        ...why is the EC limited to 535 votes anyway?  But instead of just giving random electoral votes, we should amend the federal law that limits the house of representatives to 435 members.  House members should represent no more than, say, 200,000 people in their state (pick a number).

        This gives a bit more weight to more populous states, but doesn't take away the advantage that small states have by getting 2 EV's (and two senators) no matter what their population.

        Plus it has the added benefit of possibly lessening the effect of gerrymandering, and actually makes the Reps. accountable to their districts again.

        I've read this somewhere before, but can't remember where, so I can't give a link.

        by pauldean on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 01:38:30 PM PDT

        •  Isn't Congress large enough

          On the other hand: Isn't the House large enough as it is? Your model would make a the House much larger, wouldn't it?

          That would be very expensive, and I don't think the benefit would justify the cost.

          That's just my (foreign) opinion.

          by PoliticGeek Pro on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 01:51:29 PM PDT

          •  that's the whole problem

            our system of government doesn't scale.

            by tunesmith on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 06:57:58 PM PDT

        •  A Monumental Possibility

          House members should represent no more than, say, 200,000 people in their state (pick a number).

          A similar proposal was part of the original Bill Of Rights.  Originally, the Bill Of Rights consisted of 12 Amendments offered to the States.  10 of these Amendments were ratified as a block and became known as the Bill Of Rights.  Another was finally ratified in 1992.  That other one has never been ratified (but it's still pending - I don't know how many states have ratified it).  It mandates, ultimately, one Representative per 50,000 citizens.  Were this in effect today, we'd have nearly 6,000 members of the House.  

          And then the dKos breakdowns of Congressional races would be only for the very, very, very hardcore ...

          by Collideascope on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 03:50:17 PM PDT

          •  Just out of curiosity...

            ...what is the 11th member of the Bill of Rights that was ratified in 1992?
            

            by pauldean on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 11:36:19 PM PDT

            •  The 27th

              It is the most recent amendment, the 27th Amendment.

              by PoliticGeek Pro on Fri Mar 05, 2004 at 06:10:53 AM PDT

      •  A Modest Proposal

        That title is usually reserved for extremely sarcastic proposals, per the originator, not reasonable and practical ones like yours.  I was expecting something like "Give electoral votes to states based on inverse ratio of the percentage of Fox News viewer" or something like that.

        by Blue the Wild Dog on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 01:59:31 PM PDT

      •  One more thought: should be a fraction

        One more thought: Awarding electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote shouldn't be a whole number at all. Then it would have a 50/50 chance being a tie again next time a state is added, like Puerto Rico. Or Guam. Or Greenland. Or Cuba. (OK that last one was a joke.)

        It would be safe to assign a fraction of an electoral vote, like 0.5 or 4.5 votes, to the winner of the popular vote. Then there would never be a tie, except in instances when more than two candidates get electoral votes.

        by PoliticGeek Pro on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 03:28:34 PM PDT

      •  Electors Are Like Cockroaches

        ... they're not going anywhere ...

        It'd be better if we fixed the Electoral College so that we don't elect illegitimate presidents

        I never endorsed the College; I simply pointed out the reality that cajoling 38 states into supporting an Amendment that eliminates that College, when at least half of said states will be specifically voting to lessen their own influence in selecting a President, is a task that is very unlikely to ever be accomplished.

        It didn't happen post-1824.  It didn't happen post-1876, when Tilden not only received a plurality but a majority of the popular vote, yet lost (the only time that's ever happened).  It didn't happen post-1888, when for the 2nd time in 4 elections the College voted differed from the popular vote.  And there has been no groundswell since 2000 to change the Electoral College.  Given a complete lack of historical precedent for such elections spurring a remodeling of our electoral process, I don't see any reason to imagine that future elections will do so.

        As for illegitimacy and George W. Bush, that stems from the Florida debacle, not from the fact that the Constitutionally prescribed process of allocating votes via the Electoral College was followed.

        True, so mend it, don't end it.  Adding a bonus of 5 electoral votes to the popular vote winner would still require candidates to go state-by-state.

        And doing so would still erode the advantage small states have in selecting a President, so selling them on this proposal is simply a non-starter.

        Plus adding an odd-numbered electoral bonus would solve the problem of a possible tie in the Electoral College.

        For elections in which only two candidates take Electoral College votes, yes.

        A popular vote bonus of 32 or 66 is so high that it in practice make the Electoral College an empty vessel for the popular vote - hence no small state would ever agree to that.

        Yes.  Your solution wouldn't eliminate the problem.  And you wouldn't get 38 states to agree to it, anyway.

        We're stuck with the College.  But, really, it's no more inequitable than the Senate.  Or the UN.  I'm generally ambivalent about it, mostly because it simply isn't going anywhere.

        I do think that an election tossed into the House would be a fascinating spectacle of political theater, especially if neither side could muster a majority of delegations.  And to see those Representatives whose districts/states had voted for the candidate of the "other" party have to choose between royally pissing off their constituents or royally pissing off their party would be great fun!

        by Collideascope on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 03:41:08 PM PDT

  •  No way it gets that far

    Interesting parlor game, but the thugs won't let things get that far.

    Either they pull some more skullduggery a la Bush v. Gore, or Kerry whips Bush's ass so bad there's nowhere for the punk to turn.

    by Jim J on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 12:24:27 PM PDT

  •  Sigh...

    ...when are Democrats going to stop blaming the 2000 election on the Electoral College?  You want to blame somebody, blame Florida election law, Republicans hijacking the courts, etc.

    The Founders KNEW the EC would favor rural areas over metropolitan areas, and smaller states over larger ones.  That's the way they wanted it.  Giving more power to large cities/states makes it more likely that you have "The Tyranny of the Majority" take over.  Giving more power to those states that "drive the economy" is like giving more power to Enron.  We saw how that turned out.

    I fail to see how an election lacks legitimacy when the Constitution written to oversee it works perfectly.  

    by pauldean on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 01:02:18 PM PDT

•  Doomsday

  I honestly think we would have massive rioting if George W. Bush is returned to office in this scenario. But I think you will see Cats and Dogs living together in peace before it occurs..

  I support your efforts to encourage Democratic activism but if Kerry can't do better than tie in the Electoral college it's doubtful that there are any circumstances (economic, security, cultural) that would elect the needed House members to select Pres. John Kerry.

  by joejoejoe on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 06:21:24 AM PDT

•  I'm not sure how correct you are...

  The new delegations will not have been sworn in time to split the tie.  The old delegations will be the ones who vote for the president in this case.

  So, except for special election wins in SD and LA, there's nothing that can be done about the current lineup.

  by John on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 06:24:38 AM PDT

  •  It's the new Congress

    If I read the United States Code right, it is the New Congress that votes. The problem may only (formally) arise after January 6, at 1 p.m., when both (new) chambers of congress meet in joint session to count the electoral votes ...

    The old veep presides over this meeting, in the capacity of President of the Senate.

    by PoliticGeek Pro on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 11:44:49 AM PDT

    •  Old or New?

      Nope.  In the event of a tie in the Electoral College, it's the outgoing House that picks the President, and the incoming Senate that picks the Vice President.

      by Thomas Kalinowski on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 02:10:07 PM PDT

      •  Ad fontes

        OK, I went to the sources, US code (cited down-thread). Please explain how I am wrong.

        For the eight time: The new Congress is sworn in Jan 3. The electoral college votes are counted Jan 6, 1 p.m., in joint session. If it is a tie, it goes to Congress, after the new Congress is convened. The old VP presides.

        by PoliticGeek Pro on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 03:02:39 PM PDT

        •  Whoops

          Whoops, you're right, I'm wrong.

          The incoming House selects the President, and the incoming Senate selects the Vice President.

          I'll conclude this admission of incorrectitude by agreeing with the other posters who point out that winning all these House seats would be damn hard to do without also winning more states, in which case the 269-269 scenario wouldn't happen in the first place.

          by Thomas Kalinowski on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 06:51:42 PM PDT

•  Hmmm

  I think if the Democrats can pick up all those seats in the House, then Kerry should be able to get 270 electoral votes. :)

  by jfern on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 06:35:18 AM PDT

•  Amend the Constitution

  I agree that it is unlikely to both be tied in the Electoral College and in the House. If the House is tied, the Electoral College is already won.

  I don't think the Electoral College is such a bad thing. But it should be amended to have another tie-breaking mechanism:

  If the eletoral college is tied, the popular vote should be the tie-breaker.

  That should be a passable amendment, shouldn't it? Use the "avoid constitutional crisis"-argument.

  by PoliticGeek Pro on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 07:51:12 AM PDT

  •  Doesn't cut it

    IF you have a third candidate who takes some EVs.  It's happened, so...

    Look at Bush v Clinton v Perot as an example.

    Imagine a candidate who has a strong draw in some swing state(s), and wins one of more states, leaving no candidate with an Electoral Vote majority, and no candidate with a majority of popular votes.

    You're back to a constitutional crisis. At least the system that exists doesn't have this "blue screen of death" scenario.  

    Implausible?  Sure.  Possible?  Yes.  And given time, implausible things happen.  B Actors get elected to high office, as do wrestlers, deserters....

    The out that you could draft in here would award victory to the candidate with the plurality of the popular votes, should there be a tie in the Electoral College.  Which, I submit, would be a recipe for disaster.

    Assume that two candidates each pull 35% of the EV, and another takes 30%.  You could still have a plurality of the popular vote in the pocket of the one that took 30% (assuming victory in big population, lower EV states).  But even if you don't, you get a president who has the support of only 35% of the EC, and something around 36% of the population.  

    Better in that case to have the elected representatives make sausage and compromises.

    It's imaginable that you'd have a truly bad party--fascists, say--and the majority, while split seriously, could at least agree that those people and their candidate ought not be allowed to take power.

    by ogre on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 02:12:03 PM PDT

    •  1 electoral vote to the popular vote winner?

      I can see those problems you cite.

      But I believe that can be amended by awarding 0.5 electoral votes to the candidate getting the plurality of votes nation-wide. With that system, the case of a third party getting electoral votes would still go to sausage-making in Congress. :)

      Why 0.5 and not 1? In the event that Puerto Rico or some other territory is getting statehood and an odd number of electoral votes.

      by PoliticGeek Pro on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 03:16:31 PM PDT

      •  Geeking

        Any new state would bring two senators in (complicating the simple math that 100 offers, alas...) and would get a share of the 435 representatives roughly equal to its proportion of the total population of the US.  The number would remain odd.  

        It's the additional electors for DC that screw this up.  Better to make DC a state, or reincorporate the city into the state of MD... with appropriate measures taken.  Or give DC four.

        by ogre on Fri Mar 05, 2004 at 08:17:32 PM PDT

        •  DC statehood

          OK, I understand. The House was frozen to 435 reps in 1920.

          DC would get 1 representative as a state, snatching one rep (and one electoral vote) from North Carolina, and reducing the total number of electoral votes by one, to 537. :) So it would make the 269-269 tie into 269-268 for the candidate not carrying North Carolina.

          DC is already overrepresented in the electoral college, the same way Idaho and other states with small populations are, so giving DC another electoral vote, one more than it would have as a state, would never, ever happen.

          by PoliticGeek Pro on Sat Mar 06, 2004 at 07:33:27 AM PDT

•  Wait

  Doesn't this ignore the House members from
  territories, like Guam and Puerto Rico? Or are they not "delegations"?

  by acs on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 08:26:07 AM PDT

  •  They're not state delegations...

    and neither is Eleanor Holmes Norton from DC, even though DC gets electoral votes now from the 23rd Amendment (which is actually the whole reason we can even have a tie, because an odd number added to an already odd number makes an even number).  Those House members aren't "real" Representatives in a constitutional sense, but territorial delegates whose existence is established by statute; that's why, though they can vote in committee, they can't vote on final passage of a bill.  For constitutional purposes, they basically don't exist.

    by David on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 12:02:53 PM PDT

•  if this happens

  The house will elect the winner of the popular vote as President and somebody from the other party as VP, only way to safe a stable democracy.
  Everything else would lead to riots and permanent damage to US.

  So a Kerry/Mccain ticket might not be so unlikely.

  by florian on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 08:40:03 AM PDT

  •  Huh?...

    I don't see how the house will see that the way to avoid riots is to elect the popular vote winner.  They will vote party lines.

    And McCain will actually have to be on a ballot and get electoral votes in order to be voted in by the Senate.  (Actually, the Senate votes on the VP candidates with the two most electoral votes.)

    by pauldean on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 01:12:54 PM PDT

•  What do the House rules say

  about how each delegation decides on how to cast its one vote.  We seem to be assuming majority rules, but it's not clear to me that that's necessarily true. Is there anything in the House rules?  I know there's nothing in the Constitution about this.

  by plunkitt on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 09:20:59 AM PDT

  •  Precedent

    In Congrefs Affembled...

    Historical precedent has state delegations polling themselves and the majority rules.

    It's only unfamiliar to us because it's not been done in aeons.  But remember, this is a republic made up of independent, sovereign states.  The states used to only have a vote each in the Congressional Congress, and they sent however many delegates they chose to send. Sometimes intentionally split so as to tie their hands unless they could work out a novel and acceptable compromise.  In some cases, states did split their internal polling, failed to find a comnpromise, and did not vote.

    by ogre on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 02:17:19 PM PDT

•  Good work, I guess

  Must be a slow news day if this is already the focus of attention.

  by Beltway Bandit on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 10:53:50 AM PDT

•  I don't need this kind of tsouris

  first thing in the morning.  Can't we talk about how we are going to win instead of figuring out another way to lose?

  by yellowdog on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 11:06:48 AM PDT

•  Old House, not the new one

  Isn't it the outgoing House that would vote in such a scenario, not the incoming one?  So even if we turned out enough GOP Reps. this cycle to make a difference, it wouldn't matter, since the losers would still be the ones casting the ballots.

  by jalefkowit on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 11:19:43 AM PDT

  •  It's the new Congress

    If I read the United States Code right, it is the New Congress that votes, after Jan 6 1 p.m. The count of the electoral votes are not (formally) known before that.

    by PoliticGeek Pro on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 11:49:56 AM PDT

•  Flawed thought

  The issue is moot... the newly elected folks will not get to vote on the matter because they are not members untl sworn in in 2005. Sorry.

  by bwise on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 11:44:13 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, but the vote is in Jan 2005

    But the electoral votes will be counted in a joint session of the new house and the new Senate, with the old veep as president, at Jan 6 2005, 1.p.m., as set forth by law.

    Al Gore did this, poor man.

    If I recall correctly, new members are sworn in earlier the same day. (Or maybe it is a day or two before?)

    by PoliticGeek Pro on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 11:53:33 AM PDT

    •  Congress convenes Jan 3

      Correction: Congress is sworn in Jan 3, three days before the electoral college votes are counted. (Links in a post below.)

      by PoliticGeek Pro on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 12:55:42 PM PDT

•  Illinois?

  Why is Illinois far-fetched?  John Shimkus is an evil swine.  Can't the Democrats field a good candidate against him?  Glen Poshard?

  I really, really don't like Shimkus.  I can't believe he beat David Phelps.  Please tell me that someone strong is running against him in 2004.

  by Ralph on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 11:51:56 AM PDT

  •  Illinois's Not Farfetched

    As BushAdmin's fortunes continue to crumble, prospects brighten in the 10th District.  The notion that Mark Kirk is unassailable were, in part, based upon a then-false premise (held by most excepting Dean-backers) that the Dems stood little chance to take the Whitehouse.

    Lee Goodman is a fine candidate, and has the makings of a strong grassroots effort in a district that has always had a good turnout for democrats due to solid party organization at the township level.  Mr. Goodman visited our local Dean MeetUp last night, and made a solid impression.  (I live in the IL 9th, a safe dem seat).

    Go find out more about Lee Goodman here.

    Or, bypass that, and help fund a democrat in this winnable race here

    by wystler on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 04:39:17 PM PDT

•  If everything breaks our way...

  If everything breaks our way so that we take the house and enough statewide delegations Kerry will carry 35 states and pull in 350 electoral votes.

  by s59berg on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 11:54:53 AM PDT

•  H of R and Congressional Apportionment

  This is a little off the topic, but we should keep the congressional apportionment issue in mind when engaging in discussions with people who want to "reform" the Electoral College by abolishing the unit rule and having electoral votes be determined on a congressional district basis.  

  Not only would this arrangement further slant the effect of the EC in favor of small states, but it would open up the process to an immense amount of partisan manipulation through gerrymandering.  

  For instance, the Republicans in Pennsylvania wrote the districts in a way that Republicans can win 12 of the 19 seats with less than half the statewide vote.  Under the proposed CD-based EV system, the Democrat could carry PA, but the Republican could still win in 12 Districts and get 12 EV's, while the Democrat gets 7 district votes and the two statewide ones, entirely because of the way Republicans drew the map.  Thus while the D would carry the state, the R would get more electoral votes.  

  Under a CD-based electoral vote system, the apportionment process would give the party in power the opportunity to control not only the House delegation, but the Presidential vote as well.  For this reason such changes should be vigorously opposed.

  by NedRock on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 11:55:19 AM PDT

  •  Pennsylvania, with CD-based electoral vote...

    Of the 21 congressional districts that existed in 2000, Al Gore won 10 to George Bush's 11.  Giving two bonus electors to Gore for carrying the state, Bush would have gotten 47.8% of the state's electoral votes for 46.4% of the popular vote.

    The new lines are quite different.  The sixth district was changed from a Bush district to a Gore district, as was the 12th and 14th.  The third went from a Gore district to a Bush district, as did the 18th.  Gore won the eliminated 20th; Bush won the eliminated 21st.  That means under the NEW delegation lines, Gore won 10 districts to Bush's nine.  (Hence Bush would have only received 42.9% of the EVs.)

    Now Michigan...THERE was a gerrymander.  It went from 10 Gore districts - 6 Bush districts to 10 Bush - 5 Gore.

    by Mr Moderate on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 12:41:01 PM PDT

  •  Proportional EV allocation

    I believe this is how it's done in Maine and Nebraska.  1 EV is won for each CD won and the other 2 EVs go to the statewide winner.

    Nationwide this change could be done on a state-by-state basis without amending the Constitution as each state legislature has the discretion to decide how the EVs are awarded.  However I don't see this happenening anytime soon since you wouldn't see the Dems wanting to give up the winner-take-all prizes in California and New York.

    by runchadrun on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 01:28:16 PM PDT

    •  Nebraska split gives Kerry an opening

      The Nebraska EV plan might give a small opening for Kerry.  It is possible, unlikely, but possible, that the NE district containing Omaha could go Democratic.  Omaha had a Democratic representative as recently as 10 years ago, who got swept out with everyone else in '94.

      I point this out because a hunk of western Iowa is in the Omaha media market.  Using Omaha TV to influence the vote in Iowa (a swing state) might have the added benefit of picking up one more EV.  

      Every little bit counts.  

      by gregabbott on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 08:16:15 PM PDT

•  According to House precedent...

  tied delegations, if they're really tied (in the sense that an equal number of members vote each way in the end), don't cast a vote.  So it's easier than you'd think for both candidates to end up short of the needed 26 delegation-votes, at which point the Vice President (elected by the Senate) acts as President.  

  One possibly relevant targeted race that you didn't mention, by the way, though it may not be in your top 40: NV-3, where I believe the Democrats finally found a candidate.  It was designed to be a swing district, and the R candidate won last time largely because D candidate Dario Herrera [sp.?] turned out to have some metaphorical skeletons in his closet.  Winning that would flip the Nevada delegation from D to R.  Also, if we assume tied delegations don't vote, Ann Northrup's Louisville seat in KY becomes worth going after to turn an R state into a tie (though that assumes holding the retiring Ken Lucas's KY-4, which will be difficult).

  by David on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 11:57:29 AM PDT

  •  I think...

    ...tied state delegations will make damn sure to vote (in their caucus) in such a way that their state gets to participate in electing the President.

    by pauldean on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 01:21:24 PM PDT

    •  Tied is tied

      ... I'd be damned sure that in a hotly contested election, neither side in a (real) tie will give in, and let their delegation's vote go to the other side's candidate.

      by PoliticGeek Pro on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 01:27:26 PM PDT

  •  plunkitt

    thanks for th info.  where can i find a source on this precedent?
    

    by plunkitt on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 04:09:25 PM PDT

•  tie

  I think that since the Republicans got the benefit of the doubt last time... if it ends 269 apiece then the Dems should get it this time.. in the interest of fairness.  The popular vote argument is a good one as well... though I would be shocked to see a Republican congress passing any law diminishing their possible control in the election.  269 apiece is a nightmare scenario for a Dem

  by esherard8 on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 12:08:28 PM PDT

•  Stop it, Kos...

  ....you're making me sick. :)

  by thirdparty on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 12:09:21 PM PDT

•  Of course

  If the democrats were to take back the House it would be highly unlikely that Bush will be even close to a majority of electoral votes.  Such an event would be a major meltdown of the GOP across the board.  Regardless we should still focus on the House, Senate, and White House.  Its time this country had a Democratic majority again.

  by Dave the pro on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 12:10:42 PM PDT

•  Electoral Votes - Zogby

  http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2004/03/projected_elect.html

  Kerry is given 226 EVs.

  Throw in Minnesota (10), Washington (11), Oregon (7), and Wisconsin (10) and that gets him/us up to 264.

  Give Bush Tennessee, Colorado, and Missouri.

  That means any ONE of Arizona, Florida, or Ohio would put Kerry over. Either WV or Nevada would bring him to 269.
  

  by fredbellemore on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 12:22:41 PM PDT

  •  Interesting

    Yes, it does seem that the EC math currently favors our side, if only by a little.

    As a Southerner I find it intriguing that the South was solidly for Bush last time and will be again this time -- but that it doesn't seem to really matter.

    We already know the pickup opportunities for us, esp. Ohio and N.H.

    Question is: what Gore/blue state(s) can Bush  realistically take away from our column?

    by Jim J on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 12:28:24 PM PDT

•  Nope

  Kos-

  In your 269-269 scenario, it would be THIS congress selecting the president, not the next one sworn in next January...    

  by Politus on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 12:26:19 PM PDT

  •  No, it's the NEW Congress

    It's the new Congress. Kos is right. :)

    The new Congress convenes January 3, 2005. The electoral votes are counted Januare 6, at 1pm, in joint session. Then the fun begins, if it is a tie.

    Source:

    • Law controlling the electoral college
    • Law controlling new congress

    by PoliticGeek Pro on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 12:52:07 PM PDT

    •  Not even close.

      Since when do law's count for anything with the GOP and close presidential elections?  Don't be naive.  A special session would be called, a suspension of the rules, and bingo, another selected president...  

      by Politus on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 01:51:01 PM PDT

      •  Senate can filibuster

        Your scenario is scary enough, but it would take 60 votes in the current Senate to pass. Won't happen.

        by PoliticGeek Pro on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 01:53:43 PM PDT

•  Save the Headache

  Kos, save yourself and us the headache of these permutations. Let's not be complacent, but I smell a landslide. :-)
  

  by BrooklynBoy on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 12:40:10 PM PDT

  •  Landslide?

    Is that before or after Kerry implodes?  I want Bush out, but I don't have much faith in Kerry's ability to accomplish that goal, particularly when you consider his record.
    

    by Sean Robertson on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 01:06:03 PM PDT

    •  No, its After Bush Implodes

      Which started a long time ago and gets a bump today with his cynical use of 9/11 in his too slick ads.

      by BrooklynBoy on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 02:05:08 PM PDT

•  About as likely as a quarter landing on its edge.

  Just b/c 2000 was a freak breakdown of the college system doesn't mean its going to happen again. The last time it happened before that was in the early 1800's. And even in 2000 it wasn't evenly split.

  We have enough worries without worrying about phantom ones.

  by Windowdog on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 12:43:07 PM PDT

  •  Coin toss is not random

    A recent scientific study has shown that coin tosses are not random. NPR has a good interview with the professor who did the study.

    by kherr on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 01:13:33 PM PDT

    •  Didn't say it was random

      Totally missing the point, but anyways the odds of it landing on its edge have nothing to do with the 50/50 nature of it landing on either face.

      Plus the mathematician misses the point. People can't quantify how they're influencing the spin when they flip it. So the bias is always unknown and variable from toss to toss. The unknown nature of the bias negates its relevance to practical uses of coin tossing.

      by Windowdog on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 01:39:37 PM PDT

      •  I was just adding jibber jabber

        It was off-topic (sort of) and interesting (to me). It actually has some relevance, since a lot of local elections that end in tied votes get decided by coin tosses.

        As to your point about missing the point, in the interview the professor states quite clearly that the human elements introduce randomness. His coin toss machine can do heads 100% of the time. That being said, his study still shows that you get the side that starts up at least 51% of the time, even with all the human variables.

        Not quite the problem Rosencrantz and Guildenstern experienced, but I won't ever use a coin toss to decide anything.

        by kherr on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 02:10:24 PM PDT

•  Don't forget about Maine

  Don't forget that Maine splits its electors by congressional district.

  Bush is slightly more competetive in one- if they were going to mess with recounts in a 269 scenerio that is where they would do it.  We need to acknowledge that Maine CD is a 51st state with 1 E.V. for all practical purposes (though i THINK Kerry is in decent shape there).

  Given that scenerio- (which works also with NH and NV - which may be more likely at this point than NH and WV- go figure).

  I am more and more hooked on a Richardson SW strategy- lets get NV and AZ, eliminate CA from any contention and solidify NM.  Hard to see where Bush picks up what he needs elsewhere.
  (MAYBE IA?)
  

  by jgkojak on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 01:00:07 PM PDT

•  Do 2004 Elections Count?

  I thought in the case of the 269-269 tie, the vote would come BEFORE they seat a new Congress on January 3, 2005. This means they'd use the old Congress to vote, no? I could be wrong.

  GDoyle

  by GDoyle on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 01:09:30 PM PDT

  •  The vote is January 6

    The vote is January 6, at earliest. It's the new Congress.

    by PoliticGeek Pro on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 01:16:02 PM PDT

    •  Thank you PGP

      for repeating it as many times as necessary until folks get the picture.  It must get tiring having to type it over and over.  I give you a 4 for your persistence.

      It is the new Congress that votes, people!  Listen to PGP.  We almost went through it 3 years ago, how soon we forget.

      by PeteyP on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 02:04:31 PM PDT

      •  It is funny

        Actually, I think it is very funny, because I need a break in my work. Yes, I am a geek. :)

        Also, for the record, I am a Norwegian political advisor. :)

        by PoliticGeek Pro on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 03:09:15 PM PDT

        •  Hey!

          Are you the same PoliticGeek Pro over on The West Wing forums on Television Without Pity?  I'm "Sam's Twin."  I haven't posted over there in awhile, but I remember you and I used to debate (repeatedly) with that annoying "ML" person.  Oy.

          Good to see you!

          by PeteyP on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 07:35:34 PM PDT

          •  It's me :)

            The one and only "PGP" on the net, I hope. :)

            I haven't posted at TWoP for a while either. No, Sorkin on the WW set, no admiration to take to the boards. (Although I watch religiously, of course.)

            by PoliticGeek Pro on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 07:47:08 PM PDT

•  OT: encourage Democratic toughness

  Some congressional Dems are making noise about the administration's interference in Haiti: http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wocong043694773mar04,0,6892900.story?coll=ny-worldn ews-headlines

  If you're a constituent of these Representatives, thank them!  If your Representative hasn't spoken up about it, fax/write and ask them to!  We need to encourage our Dems to speak up about these sorts of issues and keep flexing that spine.  It's atrophied for so long we have to work on physical therapy for this new one and make sure the Dem body doesn't reject it!
  

  by Damek on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 02:40:01 PM PDT

•  If we win all those seats

  we will win the presidency by a lot more than 269-269.  Prediction:  We will win more like 309-239, when we take OH and AZ in addition to NH and WV.  The House is important too, not saying it isn;t.  But if we concentrate on both, we should not need the House seats for anything but the speaker's race.

  by Mimikatz on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 03:06:17 PM PDT

•  Add one?

  Just to avert the less-democratic (and less Democratic, in this case) tie situation, would it be at all possible to add one rep to the House?  Whichever state was closest mathematically to needing another district would get it, and there'd be one more electoral vote to prevent a tie.

  by Finrod on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 03:14:11 PM PDT

  •  Then you would have tie in the House

    Well, then you would have a tie in the House.

    At current, Utah is closest.

    It would be easier to add 0.5 electoral votes somewhere, like to the winner of the popular vote.

    by PoliticGeek Pro on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 03:19:11 PM PDT

    •  D'oh

      Too bad D.C. adds an odd number of electoral votes.  Another reason for D.C. statehood, I guess.  Then we could give the House and Electoral College both odd sizes.

      Failing that, we could scale the House up or down to the point at which D.C. adds an even number of electoral votes. :)

      by Finrod on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 03:31:05 PM PDT

      •  Heh :)

        DC statehood would mean a possible tie both in the House and in the electoral college.

        I assume a tie in the election of Speaker is decided with a coin toss?

        by PoliticGeek Pro on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 03:41:08 PM PDT

        •  asdf

          I meant DC statehood plus the added House seat I mentioned above. :)

          by Finrod on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 05:01:20 PM PDT

•  What About D. C. ?

  D. C. is entitled to cast votes in the electoral college, but D. C. has no voting representative in Congress.  Our sole representative, Eleanor Holmes Norton, is not permitted to vote in Congress.  If D. C. had no voice in the House of Representatives in the case of an electoral tie, this would seem to be inconsistent with the amendment to the U. S. Constitution  that gave D. C. voters the right to vote in the Presidential election (beginning with the 1964 election).  This would mean that hundreds of thousands of people would be disenfranchised, even though the U. S. Constitution gives us the right to vote.  

  by eafredel on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 03:21:06 PM PDT

•  Nevada

  Neat analysis!  You left off Nevada though, which would flip if the Dems can win a contested NV-03 election.

  by gimmeaD on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 04:16:25 PM PDT

•  First the deadlocked convention...

  now a 269-269 tie in the EC.

  Man, I LOOOOOOVE fringe scenarios.

  So, what happens if an asteroid crashes into one of the Kerry/Bush debates, killing both candidates? Do the VP candidates go on to contest the election?

  by pseudopol on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 05:05:16 PM PDT

•  This occurs

  Right after the brokered conventioin Kos was endlessly worrying about.

  by volcanic on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 05:51:49 PM PDT

•  EC tie is unlikely, because....

  ...electors are not bound in every state to actually cast their vote as the state's citizens did!  That was an issue in '92 when I became an elector for Bill Clinton on the basis of trust...that I would vote for him and not some other quirky candidate....remember?

  With 269-269 tie, someone would crack and cross over...what do you suppose the Delay offer would be, anyhow?  How much?  One might have to leave the state or the country, but one likely could live in the lap of luxury in some distant anonymous hideaway til the end of one's days...with corporate sponsors, of course.

  by oldpro on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 07:14:05 PM PDT

•  Illinois: what's the plan?

  Do the Dems have a gameplan in Illinois?

  by Carl Nyberg on Thu Mar 04, 2004 at 10:02:35 PM PDT