Didn’t want to touch any of those Nader threads with a ten foot keyboard, so let’s cogitate:
Let’s say that a 3rd party worms it’s way into the game and eventually gains enough support to become a major player. It seems to me that there would be a very real posibility that five hundred thirty-some (don’t remember exactly how many total EVs there are - this is off the top of my head, okay?) could divide up in such a way that nobody gets the required 270 needed to win. What happens then? Do we tweak the rules so that only 170-some EVs are needed to win?
Anybody know if there is a contingency plan for this?
As I recall my civics lessons the newly elected House of Representatives will elect the President.
The fine print is that the House doesn’t vote for one of the established tickets. They vote for the President. Period. The Senate conducts a separate vote for Vice President.
I would guess that the top 4 states would be the determining factors in this race. California and New York will likely do Gore or Nader. I know all my old cronies from the GOP days have decided to step away from Bush due to his decision to attempt at banning the RU486 pill. Stupid move on his part. I don’t believe a 3-way split in EVs has ever been done. I do know that Harrison had more popular votes than Cleveland’s second term but Cleveland had the EVs to put him back in the white house.
What might happen would be a run off with only the 3 candidates involved. And they might have to resolve it with popular votes. I think this would be fabulous. The two main parties have become disinterested in their issues. My vote for Browne as well as millions of others might stir some interest in the voters working harder in 2004. If it is between Nader, Gore and Bush, I doubt anyone would bother going to the polls again. I wouldn’t…I don’t care who wins this one. I hope more posters come on in with this discussion. I would love to hear how others view this election.
But consider, however, that for a third party to be of consequence in an election, it needs to not only be 10% of the total, it also needs to win individual states (that means at least more than 33% in a three way race). I can’t remember the last time a third party candidate had that much support in any one state, let alone in enough to really make a difference in the EV count.
Yep, it’s called “the Constitution” (specifically, Amendment XII). As jmullaney and SouthernStyle correctly state, the President is elected by the incoming House, and the Vice-President is elected by the incoming Senate.
Two quirks that are often not realized:
[list=1]
[li]The House votes on a per-state basis. Thus, there will be fifty votes, and twenty-six will be needed for election.[/li][li]The House chooses the President from the top three vote getters in the Electoral College. The Senate chooses the Vice-President from the top two vote-getters.[/li][/list=1] jmullaney is also correct in stating that this has happened once before, in 1824 (Thomas Jefferson was also chosen President by the House in 1800, but that was before Amendment XII, and a different system of voting in the EC was mandated by the Constitution then).
Sandy Price, unfortunately, has the first Cleveland/Harrison contest backwards. Cleveland had the popular vote, but its distribution was such that the EC elected Harrison.
Finally, zev_steinhardt writes:
I’d say that it was 1968, when Wallace took, IIRC, 41 electoral votes; not enough to affect the outcome in the EC, granted (of course, unlike me, you may not be old enough to remember 1968 ).
IIRC the EC is not required to vote for the candidate that the voters sent them for in the first place. Assuming this is correct could (say) Nader instruct his electors to vote for Gore? While this may seem silly Nader could almost certainly extract some concessions from whoever he tossed his votes to. This would be worth his effort if he was certain he’d never get passed the House vote.
I’ll bet not one in a hundred people actually know the two quirks that you posted. I know that I didn’t!
Are you sure that the House votes on a state-by-state basis? If so, are there rules for how the states determine how their votes will be cast? I can just see it now – the Representatives from the state Virginia vote among themselves and ultimately cast their one vote. Meanwhile, the SENIOR representative from Kentucky decides that there will be NO democratic process in HIS committee and decides that Kentucky will vote as HE sees fit.
Whew… what a mess!
Oh, and the dissemination of EC votes varies from one state to another. Some states require that all the votes go to the winner of the popular vote, some states leave it up to the conscience of the EC representative, and IIRC a couple of states actually split their votes based on margin of victory.
A vote by the House to elect a President is definitely on a state-by-state basis. The whole text of the Constitution is here.
I don’t know that there’s an actual procedure for such a vote, although, if a state’s vote were disputed before the courts, I’d expect that they’d find that polling its delegation to be highly preferable, at the very least.
Jeff_42 is sort of correct, IMHO. There are laws in some states that require Presidential electors to vote according to the popular will. OTOH, no elector who votes otherwise has ever been charged under such a law, and its doubtful if such a law would hold up.
Actually, you’re correct. I’m not old enough to remember that one. I was basing my opinion on my memories of Anderson in '80 and Perot in '92 and '96. Thanks for the correction Akatsukami.
Interestingly, the last 3 times there were any major electoral college votes for a third candidate (1948, 1960, and 1968), it was always a Southern state voting in protest to a candidate’s perceived stand on civil rights.
In 1960 though, there wasn’t a third party candidate, just electors who wouldn’t vote for Kennedy and voted for Byrd instead (not the current Byrd.)
1824 was the last time no candidate won a majority in the eleoctoral college. The voting in the House was by state blocs, as has been mentioned; the three elibible candidates were John Q. Adams, Andrew Jackson, and William Crawford (the fourth-placed candidate in terms of electoral votes was Henry Clay; he was Speaker of the House but was excluded from voting in the House).
As to the possibility of a third candidate holding electors and directing them to vote for one of the two major candidates, there were plans for this in 1968. George Wallace’s electors were pledged to vote for Wallace or another candidate as directed by Wallace; the plan was obviously to extract concessions from a majory-party candidate (probably Nixon). In the event, Nixon won an overall majority of the electoral vote and it didn’t matter.
).