By NBC's David Murphy
An Election Day tie in the Electoral College is unlikely, but it's not impossible. In fact, it's happened before. In the election of 1800, when party politics were brand new, each elector was allowed to cast two votes for President. The idea was that whoever came in first would be President and whoever came in second would become Vice President. The plan hit a snag, however, when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, both members of the new Democratic-Republican party, each received 73 electoral votes.
The matter was sent to the House, where each state was allowed to cast one vote for President, with the winner needing the majority of the 16 states. 35 times the House voted and 35 times the vote was 8 to 6 with 2 states abstaining because their delegations were split. No majority. Finally, after much backroom negotiating, most notably by Alexander Hamilton, Burr-supporting congressmen from the deadlocked states of Maryland and Virginia chose not to vote, allowing the states to throw their support behind Jefferson on the 36th and final ballot.
Frustration over the messy process forced Congress to move quickly to find a solution. The Twelfth Amendment was proposed in late 1803 and ratified less than seven months later, just in time for the election of 1804. The Amendment laid out an emergency plan in case of another electoral tie. It required electors to cast separate ballots for President and Vice President to eliminate the possibility of an 1800 repeat. It also created contingencies.
According to the amendment, if there's a tie, the House of Representatives would vote for President, with each state being allowed one vote. Washington, D.C. isn't allowed to participate since it's not a state. If there's a tie, the House would continue voting until a winner is decided, just as it did in 1800. The Senate would vote for Vice President, with each senator getting one vote. That means if the bodies were governed by different parties, as they are now, it's possible that the House, for example, could vote for a Republican president, while the Senate votes for a Democratic Vice President. So what if the stars align and there's a tie in the electoral college and the Senate as well? In that case, the sitting Vice President, in his role as the Senate president, would cast the deciding vote, even if it were a vote for himself. How's that for electoral chaos?
Leave a Comment:
The Congressmen and Senators would not be bound by the conventions or the national vote. They could pick anyone. They are not bound to Obama, Romney, Biden, Ryan. I suspect the Vice President selection could be the result of a new round of politicking among the senate majority. I expect the President would be one of Obama and Romney, but could be different.
Let's hope we avoid this scenario.
What is not being discussed is th problem of legitimacy. I already do not believe Romney will win 'legitimately, if he does win because of his lies but most of all because of the voter suppression and fraud in purges and voter registration committed by the republicans.
What does that do to our country? I hope that the president wins and we never have to find out.
If campaign and governmental spending reform is truly a priority, why can't that include a plan to provide to political parties at no charge three cable access channels (D, R & I) devoted to running the messages for the key parties' candidates? Beyond what is provided from the news media, digital messaging, social media, etc., this option could provide any voter with sufficient details about the candidates' positions and accomplishments to make an informed choice. Image the good that could have been done with the PAC money just spent had it gone to the Red Cross. Billions of dollars have been squandered employing talented people putting out impotent messages. What a waste.
If campaign and governmental spending reform is truly a priority, why can't that include a plan to provide to political parties at no charge three cable access channels (D, R & I) devoted to running the messages for the key parties' candidates? Beyond what is provided from the news media, digital messaging, social media, etc., this option could provide any voter with sufficient details about the candidates' positions and accomplishments to make an informed choice. Image the good that could have been done with the PAC money just spent had it gone to the Red Cross. Billions of dollars have been squandered employing talented people putting out impotent messages. What a waste.