As I understand it, a tie in EVs would result in the House voting, with each state having a delegation and one vote? If so, who do you think wins?
The Senate apparently elects the VP. Could we end up with a Democratic president and a Republican VP?
Could a state apportion it’s electoral votes after a tie and avoid the above options?
This essay gives an overview of the possibilities, which are rather Byzantine (although most of the complications they discuss are unlikely).
I think CA is considering doing this since we have so much votes. I think this is how it should be for all states although I dont want it to be.
If they do California ceases to be a player in the Presidential race because there will be little to gain for either party. Figuring it at 60/40, their 55 electoral votes will be apportioned 33/22, which any Republican candidate would be overjoyed at because they usually lose all 55 in a winner-take-all system.
It’s doubtful that the candidates would even bother to campaign there if California apportioned their votes.
This is why apportionment schemes keep getting voted down in all the states where they’re proposed. In any given state, the party that has more power would stand to lose by apportioning the electoral votes, and since they have more power, they can vote down the proposals.
Obama, easily. Democrats already control a majority of House delegations and are highly likely to increase their majority in November, regardless of the outcome of the presidential election. It’s close to inconceivable that a Representative would desert his own party’s presidential candidate in a House election.
No, because Democrats are all but guaranteed to control the Senate.
Of course not. You can’t change the manner of election after the election.
You might want to re-think that answer. I believe each state only gets one vote. Count the number of red states vs. blue states.
Presidential elections don’t correlate well with far more local House elections. Just look at the plethora of southern Democrats over the years for an example of that.
Anywho, there are currently 27 states with Democratic-majority House delegations, and 21 with a Republican-majority delegations. Arizona and Kansas have tantalizing 50/50 splits.
Hmmm… On further reflection, and after looking at this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:110th_US_Congress_House_of_Reps_Current.png
I retract my argument.
Edit: Friedo beat me to it.
I dunno. There are a few heavily red states with Dem controlled congressional delegations. I think its at least conceivable that a Dem congressman from a state that voted for McCain 70-30 (say Tennessee) one of the would decide that he should vote the same way his party did.
But the Dems will probably have enough of a margin that they’ll be safe even if they loose a states vote due to this possibility.
This is one reason why the Alaska race is a bit more interesting.
I don’t think there will be a tie. But Alaska Representative Don Young stands a good chance to lose the race this year. Even though Alaska is a very Republican state, Young is under investigation. Combined with the trial of Senator Stevens, this makes Alaska in play for Democrats. If the Democrats pick up the Alaska seat, that would be an entire state delegation in the Obama camp should the election get tossed into the House of Representatives.
This is also one reason why I think Gore finally gave up in 2000. The Republicans carried the majority of state delegations in 2000. The best Gore could have hoped was that the election go to the House of Representatives. With the 50-50 Senate, that could have been very odd.
Why would the 50 50 Senate split have had anything to do with the election determination in the House of Representatives?
You’re missing another key point: the state as a whole loses power (including state members of both parties) if it goes to proportional representation.
A Presidential campaign would always spend more resources in a close non-proportional state than a close proportional state (because there’s more to gain). Those resources will include dollars spent in the state (improving its economy) and favors to politicians in the state (who will help campaign/deliver the vote). So in a state that’s close, even the local members of the party without power would lose favors/influence by going to proportional representation.
Of course, the same logic means that in a state that’s always solidly for one party, local politicians (for both parties) have an incentive to adopt proportional representation. (Because there’s no reason for either campaign to spend resources in a state where the non-proportioned electoral votes are all clearly going one way. But if you can pick up even one vote in a proportional state, it’s worth doing some campaigning). However, evidently, the national party interests end up dominating the state interests in these cases.
