Matthew Dowd has this column in the Huffington Post on the chances of a powerful presidential candidate in 2012 who is not the nominee of either the Democratic or Republican Parties. The column says that if no one gets a majority in the Electoral College, and the U.S. House chooses the President, Republicans have an advantage. The piece says that Republicans virtually always carry more states. This is not correct. In 2008, Republicans only carried 22 states; in 1996, they only carried 19; in 1992, they only carried 18.
One must go back to 1976 to find an election at which the Democrats won, but the Republicans carried more states. In 1976, Gerald Ford carried 27 states but still lost the election. Thanks to Peter Gemma for the link. The article originally appeared in the National Journal.
Just swell.
About have a repeat of 1860 to get Civil WAR II ???
Const Amdt
Uniform definition of Elector
P.R. and App.V
SAVE Democracy before the gerrymander MONSTERS (i.e. monarchs / oligarchs) start Civil WAR II.
Richard,
I think you might be mistaken on a point. You mentioned the states “carried” by Republicans in 1992, 1996 and 2008, but I think you were referring to the presidential vote carried in that state and not what the US House delegation in that state looked like, i.e. did the state have more Republican US Congressmen than Democratic US Congressmen.
If noone wins the electorial vote it would be the congressional house member delegation that would vote to give their state’s single vote to a candidate. Dowd may be right that Republicans have a majority (33) of House delegations, i.e. the state individually has more Republican US Congressman than US Democratic Congressmen so thus it is a Republican state. If so, I’d say it is a forgone conclusion that a situation with no candidate having a majority of Electoral College votes would result in a Republican president. Even if the Republican candidate finished 3rd in a 3 way race. I cannot imagine a scenario where the partisanship by Republicans would allow any of their members to vote for anyone else.
Interesting questions/thoughts:
1) Is it the existing states’ congressional delegations that chooses the President in the event of a non-majority EC situation OR is it the new congressional delegation that wins in 2012?
2) When would a House vote take place? It would have to happen after the EC vote in mid-December, but conceivably could the vote be rushed by a Speaker Boehner before a transition to a new congress (early January?) if by some chance the Democrats have another swing election and win back the house, the speaker’s gavel and more importantly and necessarily a majority of state’s congressional delegations?
3) Monatana’s single congresman (and other single congressman states) would have just as much power as California’s 55 congressmen and Texas’ 32 congressman.
4) What happens if the result of a tie? I.e. 25-25
5) What happens if the result is no candidate gets a majority of state delegation votes? I.e. 24-22-4. Let’s say four states vote for the third party candidate.
6) I guess DC doesn’t get a say in a House vote because they only have a “shadow” congressman and no full US Congressman and are again disenfranchised.
#2 How about ARMIES of folks marching in the streets of Deficit City in Dec. 2012 ???
— when some EVIL moron in the regime shoots off its EVIL mouth — and things happen ???
See the Spanish Civil WAR in 1936-1939 — one more left v. right WAR in history.
#3
Ooooo….I like your thinking. Let’s storm a federal armory and see what civil war shennanigans we can get up to.
#2, you may be right. His sentence is ambiguous. It says, “Today, Republicans almost always win more states in national elections.” When I read that, I thought he meant presidential elections. If he meant U.S. House elections, you would be right.
#2 — Your thoughts are very interesting. Here are my two cents.
1- The House of Representatives would be involved AFTER the Electoral Votes are counted in the Joint Session of Congress held on January 5th or 6th. That session is held, if I’m not mistaken, after the new Congress is sworn in. It can’t happen before because officially the states have not cast their electoral votes until they are opened by Congress.
2- The vote requirement is a majority of the states, but I’m not sure if that counts states that don’t vote because they are tied. Each state delegation votes (when there’s more than one member of the House for that state) and the one who gets the most votes gets the state’s vote. Each state has only one vote. In 1801 the House voted more than once until Jefferson was elected. In 1825 the House voted more than once until John Quincy Adams was elected.
3- If there’s a tie vote in a state delegation, then that state doesn’t vote.
4- Nothing in the Constitution says the members of the House must vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state or nationwide. Remember, when the Constitution was written, the idea was that the state legislature would appoint the electors. There was no thought of having any type of popular vote for President.
5-The vote by the House of Representatives only applies to the states, so DC, PR, and the other territories have no vote. The 23rd Amendment only gave DC the vote in the Electoral College, but said nothing about the House of Representatives.
# 6
point 2 – the 1800 chaos produced the 12th Amdt.
point 4 Once again — see 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 — worked on for about 7 months in 1865-1866 in the 39th Congress
— after some genius noted that the 13th Amdt (Dec. 1865) would have the effect of getting a HIGHER percentage of U.S.A. Reps and Electoral College votes in all of the ex-slave States (rebel or Union during the Civil War).
ANY body recall the Bush v. Gore CHAOS in Nov-Dec 2000 ???
The top robot gerrymander party hacks do NOT like each other — and will use ALL of the ANTI-Democracy loopholes to get P-O-W-E-R.
Will the losers shoot off their mouths so that things happen ???
See SC Nov-Dec. 1860 leading to Apr. 1861 leading to about 620,000 DEAD Americans on both sides in 1861-1865.
Juan,
Thanks for the information. Especially your point #1. If it comes into play it would be a very contentious issue if the House potentially is switching to a Dem majority (in terms of state delegations) and the timing of Congress being “in session” is variable. I.e. somehow session is called after mid-December after EC votes are cast and before early January when new members are sworn in.