One of the least-discussed flaws with the Electoral College system is that there are an even number of presidential electors. Generally, commentators assume some presidential candidate will always receive a majority of the electoral votes if no minor party or independent candidate carries a state. But that assumption is wrong. Even with only two candidates receiving electoral votes, a tie could occur and then the U.S. House would choose the president, with each state having one vote. See this. Scroll down to the bottom. Thanks to Political Wire for the link.
The Electoral College did result in a tie in 1800. Also, in the 1876 election, the winner received only one more electoral vote than the loser.
With National Popular Vote a tie would never happen, because the compact always represents a bloc consisting of a majority of the electoral votes.
When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from the enacting states totaling at least 270 votes, would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
This 269-269 scenario is so implausible as to be almost irrelevant. States like Ohio, Iowa and New Hampshire often tip between Democrats and Republicans. Virginia hadn’t gone Democrat since the 1964 Johnson landslide and before that, Harry Truman’s 1948 upset victory. Based on history, Virginia is perhaps the least likely state to stay with Obama in a very close election. Prof. Sabato should know that much about his own state.
#2, I don’t agree. Virginia has a healthier economy than most states, and Virginia’s population has been changing. The D.C. suburbs are coming closer to dominating Virginia.
Richard: True, but all I am saying is that a scenario requiring traditional “swing states” like Iowa, Ohio, New Hampshire and Florida to go against Obama, but Virginia to stay with him, seems highly unlikely.
With Americans Elect 2012 a possible 50 state party line, does the possiblility of no major party getting 270 really exist?
Any last minute U.S. Rep gerrymander districts to become more E.C. gerrymander areas ???
See NE in 2008. One of 5 E.C. votes for Obama.
NO limit on the robot party hack EVIL machinations to get Prez POWER — marginal control now of about 5-10 percent of the entire U.S.A. economy. BIG $$$$$$ are involved.
GDP now about a mere $$$ 15 TRILLION.
#6: Are you responding to Mike’s question about the possible effect of Americans Elect in 2012? My answer to Mike would be that AE could be a spoiler if its ticket leans too far left or too far right and takes a state or two that the party ticket closest to it would otherwise need to reach 270 electoral votes. The best chance for AE to accomplish its contingency plan of brokering an Electoral College outcome is to adhere strictly to a centrist ticket. Ross Perot avoided being a spoiler in 1992, when exit polling showed he drew evenly from George Bush and Bill Clinton.
# 7 Who wants a repeat of 1860 or even 1992 ???
MINORITY RULE Prezs – regardless of the STONE AGE E.C. math — esp. with a 26-269 tie and the TOTAL EVIL 12th Amdt tiebreaker stuff takes over.
I want a 1992 with the following reform: have voters vote for 1, 2 or 3 candidates.
In a 3-candidate race, there would be the following ballot lines:
– Candidate A
– Candidate B
– Candidate C
– Candidate A & B
– Candidate A & C
– Candidate B & C
– Candidate A B & C
The ballot line with the most votes wins!
#8: It doesn’t much matter whether we “want” or don’t want a third party on the ballot. If it happens, we just deal with the implications and fallout from it. #9: The reform you describe doesn’t sound like anything that’s likely to be enacted between now and Nov. 2012. Do you have an alternative thought?