Could the U.S. House be picking our next President?

[NellyLunatic1980]

The answer to that question: "Yes, it is totally possible."

According to the latest poll averages from Pollster.com, Obama still holds the lead in Colorado (46.9-46.5), Iowa (52-41.1), and New Mexico (47.3-43.4). However, the averages indicate that McCain now has a 47-45.3 lead in New Hampshire and a 46.2-44.8 lead in Ohio.

Pollster.com's EV count: Obama 269, McCain 269. Neither candidate has the required 270.

Electoral-Vote.com shows a similar count. They show Obama leading in just Colorado and Iowa. Their EV count is McCain 270, Obama 268. McCain has the bare minimum of EVs required for the presidency.

If either candidate has exactly 270 EVs on November 4, then he would have to hope that all of his electors vote for him when the Electoral College convenes. If even one elector dissents and casts a blank vote or a vote for somebody else in their party for President, then once again, neither candidate will have the majority.

According to the Constitution, if no presidential candidate has a clear majority of the Electoral College, then the U.S. House votes for President.

The U.S. House currently has a Democratic majority, so one would assume that they would vote for Obama if the election relied on them... but the voting procedure is not that cut and dry. This is a subject that we may have to discuss here if indeed we have a 269-269 or 269-268 electoral vote.

In the entire history of American elections, 1824 was the only time in which the candidate who had the plurality of the popular vote was not elected the President. Andrew Jackson had 99 EVs to John Q. Adams' 84 EVs, with 131 out of 261 being a clear majority. Incidentally, Jackson also had the plurality of the popular vote--43%-31% in a four-way race. But the U.S. House at that time was an anti-Jackson majority, and they snubbed both pluralities by voting for JQA.

I'm not saying that this will happen in 2008, but the possibility is very much there.

[bazodee]

If no candidate has attained 270 electoral votes, then the House of Representatives will choose the President, but you've got the procedure wrong. Each state gets one vote; you'll have to wait until the elections to see the make-up of each delegate state by state. One cannot assume that because the House overall will have a sizable Democratic majority, that there will be 26 states where Dems hold sway.

If no candidate for Vice-President has 270 electoral votes, the Senate would choose the Vice-President, with each senator (not state) getting one vote to cast.

One other footnote, there are now two states (Maine and Nebraska) that can split their electoral votes. Those votes will be cast by winner of each congressional district, with the overall state winner receiving the bonus two electoral votes. This comes into play, especially in Nebraska, which is traditionally Republican, but for the first time may cast at least one Democratic electoral vote for the district in and around Omaha.

[Appa23]

Here is the interesting part.

Based on that possibility of a 269-269 tie based on entire states, Obama has been targeting Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District. As Nebraska apportions its EVs via district, Obama's campaign has indicated that it will be trying harder for that one EV. (

Nebraska is largely ignored in every Presidential campaign becuase it is such a red state. However, the Republican advantage is much less in the Omaha area. Plus, in that Iowa could be in play, the Omaha area already receives all of the ads directed to Council Bluffs and Western Iowa.

Still, I feel fairly certain that Nebraska will be entirely red again this year. (Obama needs to hope that the 2nd Congressional race is tight, encouraging Democratic turnout. Interestingly, the current Congressman, Rep. Lee Terry, has a son who is a classmate of my son, at Ronald Reagan Elementary.)

[Appa23]

If no candidate has attained 270 electoral votes, then the House of Representatives will choose the President, but you've got the procedure wrong. Each state gets one vote; you'll have to wait until the elections to see the make-up of each delegate state by state. One cannot assume that because the House overall will have a sizable Democratic majority, that there will be 26 states where Dems hold sway.

If no candidate for Vice-President has 270 electoral votes, the Senate would choose the Vice-President, with each senator (not state) getting one vote to cast.

One other footnote, there are now two states (Maine and Nebraska) that can split their electoral votes. Those votes will be cast by winner of each congressional district, with the overall state winner receiving the bonus two electoral votes. This comes into play, especially in Nebraska, which is traditionally Republican, but for the first time may cast at least one Democratic electoral vote for the district in and around Omaha.

Jinx!

I have not seen or heard of any polling for the 2nd District yet. In that it has been three decades since a Democrat has won the congressional seat, and Omaha is heavily religious and still thinks of itself as being a large city with a small-town attitude, Obama-Biden may have issues with drawing votes.

It would be exciting to finally have some attention in a Presidential election.

[NellyLunatic1980]

Still, I feel fairly certain that Nebraska will be entirely red again this year. (Obama needs to hope that the 2nd Congressional race is tight, encouraging Democratic turnout. Interestingly, the current Congressman, Rep. Lee Terry, has a son who is a classmate of my son, at Ronald Reagan Elementary.)

I believe that you are correct on this. The last poll I saw from this district was back in May, and it had McCain ahead 52-42. It could still be in play, but I'm not seeing it right now.

[silverscreenselect]

If no candidate has attained 270 electoral votes, then the House of Representatives will choose the President, but you've got the procedure wrong. Each state gets one vote; you'll have to wait until the elections to see the make-up of each delegate state by state. One cannot assume that because the House overall will have a sizable Democratic majority, that there will be 26 states where Dems hold sway.

What would happen in states with an even number of Congressional seats if they happened to be evenly split? Would the state abstain?

And while the House picks the President, the Senate picks the VP with each Senator getting one vote, so that it wouldn't be impossible to wind up with a McCain/Biden "team."

In 1968, the chances of the election going to the House were substantial. If Humphrey had managed to carry Ohio and one of a few other close states, that would have happened. In that case, the question would have been what would Wallace have done with his electors. In all likelihood, he would have brokered a deal with either Nixon or Humphrey (similar to what happens in European politics all the time) getting some concessions, including possibly some rollbacks on civil rights legislation, in exchange for his electors and the presidency.

[Bob78164]

If no candidate has attained 270 electoral votes, then the House of Representatives will choose the President, but you've got the procedure wrong. Each state gets one vote; you'll have to wait until the elections to see the make-up of each delegate state by state. One cannot assume that because the House overall will have a sizable Democratic majority, that there will be 26 states where Dems hold sway.

What would happen in states with an even number of Congressional seats if they happened to be evenly split? Would the state abstain?

And while the House picks the President, the Senate picks the VP with each Senator getting one vote, so that it wouldn't be impossible to wind up with a McCain/Biden "team."

In 1968, the chances of the election going to the House were substantial. If Humphrey had managed to carry Ohio and one of a few other close states, that would have happened. In that case, the question would have been what would Wallace have done with his electors. In all likelihood, he would have brokered a deal with either Nixon or Humphrey (similar to what happens in European politics all the time) getting some concessions, including possibly some rollbacks on civil rights legislation, in exchange for his electors and the presidency.

If a state's delegation is split, it abstains. However, I've seen at least two analyses indicating that even a worst case scenario will leave 26 state delegations with Democratic majorities, so unless a Democrat crosses party lines, if the election ends up in the House, Obama will become President. --Bob

[NellyLunatic1980]

If a state's delegation is split, it abstains. However, I've seen at least two analyses indicating that even a worst case scenario will leave 26 state delegations with Democratic majorities, so unless a Democrat crosses party lines, if the election ends up in the House, Obama will become President. --Bob

This is true. Six states that will most likely vote for McCain in November have more Democratic representatives than Republican ones: Arkansas (3-1), Mississippi (3-1), North Dakota (at-large Dem), South Dakota (at-large Dem), Tennessee (5-4), and West Virginia (2-1). Four swing states that voted for Bush in '04 have Democratic majorities: Colorado (4-3), Indiana (5-4), Iowa (3-2), and North Carolina (7-6).

But to the Republicans' credit, Michigan has a 9-6 Republican majority and Delaware's lone representative is a Republican.

[Appa23]

If a state's delegation is split, it abstains. However, I've seen at least two analyses indicating that even a worst case scenario will leave 26 state delegations with Democratic majorities, so unless a Democrat crosses party lines, if the election ends up in the House, Obama will become President. --Bob

This is true. Six states that will most likely vote for McCain in November have more Democratic representatives than Republican ones: Arkansas (3-1), Mississippi (3-1), North Dakota (at-large Dem), South Dakota (at-large Dem), Tennessee (5-4), and West Virginia (2-1). Four swing states that voted for Bush in '04 have Democratic majorities: Colorado (4-3), Indiana (5-4), Iowa (3-2), and North Carolina (7-6).

But to the Republicans' credit, Michigan has a 9-6 Republican majority and Delaware's lone representative is a Republican.

You raise an interesting dilemma: if I am a Congressman, do I look after my party's Presidential candidate or my own elected office?

For example, if McCain wins the Dakotas by a large margin (60-40, just to lay a number out there), do those single Reps vote their party or do they vote as their state voted? Their constituents likely will not be happy if their votes are ignored. The same goes for Delaware and several other states.

This is an interesting question because there will be more red states than blue states if there is 269-269 tie.

Now, I really think that things will tip one way or the other over the next 7 weeks, such that one of the candidates will end up over 300 EVs.

[NellyLunatic1980]

If a state's delegation is split, it abstains. However, I've seen at least two analyses indicating that even a worst case scenario will leave 26 state delegations with Democratic majorities, so unless a Democrat crosses party lines, if the election ends up in the House, Obama will become President. --Bob

This is true. Six states that will most likely vote for McCain in November have more Democratic representatives than Republican ones: Arkansas (3-1), Mississippi (3-1), North Dakota (at-large Dem), South Dakota (at-large Dem), Tennessee (5-4), and West Virginia (2-1). Four swing states that voted for Bush in '04 have Democratic majorities: Colorado (4-3), Indiana (5-4), Iowa (3-2), and North Carolina (7-6).

But to the Republicans' credit, Michigan has a 9-6 Republican majority and Delaware's lone representative is a Republican.

You raise an interesting dilemma: if I am a Congressman, do I look after my party's Presidential candidate or my own elected office?

For example, if McCain wins the Dakotas by a large margin (60-40, just to lay a number out there), do those single Reps vote their party or do they vote as their state voted? Their constituents likely will not be happy if their votes are ignored. The same goes for Delaware and several other states.

This is an interesting question because there will be more red states than blue states if there is 269-269 tie.

This will sound strange, but Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos is thinking the same way as you are:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/14/132429/070

[bazodee]

If the tally is presumed to be 269-all after election night, then the nightmare scenario of "faithless electors" arises. After all, the President isn't really elected until December 15, 2008 when electors assemble in their various state capitals. Some states have laws binding the electors to vote the will of the majority; most do not.

Imagine the opportunity for an elector to (a) become a footnote to history, (b) certainly be the topic of many Jeopardy questions to come, and (c) put the nail in the coffin to the Electoral College system of voting. All that has to happen is for one elector to turn ...