I was looking at the electoral map and I noticed that a tie may very well be a possibility in this election. Now I am not saying I think a tie will happen just thinks its possible and more so in this election because of the battleground states. What happens in a tie anyway? Would the electoral college come into question again? Here's a question a little off-topic, can a state's electoral college vote against the voters? Let's say a state has 10,000,000 voters. 8,000,000 vote for candidate A and 2,000,000 vote for candidate B. Could the electoral votes in that state still go to candidate B?
It's possible. With the way the map has been with toss up states lately, Obama would have to win Nevada and McCain would have to win all of Florida, N. Carolina, Virginia, W. Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, and Colorado. So of those states which are still somewhat toss ups, Obama only has to win 1 while McCain has to win 8 in order to get to 269. In answer to your other question. Electors don't have to vote for the candidate they are pledged to. Electors who don't vote for their pledged candidate are called "Faithless Electors". Wikipedia article w/list of instances of faithless electors in presidential elections: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
A tie is "possible." So is a McCain victory. So is a Nader victory. But none of those things will happen. In order to achieve a tie, McCain would have to win each of the 8 states mentioned. Obama enjoys a sizeable lead in 7 of them. Not gonna happen. If it did, the House would vote on who would be the next president and Obama would win that vote easily.
McCain-Obama tie possible in US presidential race Sun Oct 5, 2008 8:52am By Andy Sullivan WASHINGTON, Oct 5 (Reuters) - What if it's a tie? A handful of battleground states are likely to determine the Nov. 4 U.S. presidential election and it's possible that Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama could split them in a manner that leaves each just short of victory. If that happens, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives would pick the president but it's unclear whether Democrats would have enough votes to send Obama to the White House. The House last decided an election in 1824. But the legal skirmishing and partisan rancor would probably resemble a more recent election -- the 2000 vote in which Republican George W. Bush narrowly defeated Democrat Al Gore after a disputed Florida vote count and legal battle. "This would be the seamy side of democracy, the lobbying and the money would be so intense," said American University history professor Allan Lichtman. In the United States, presidential elections are determined on a state-by-state basis rather than a nationwide popular vote. Each state, along with the District of Columbia, is allotted a number of votes in the Electoral College that correspond to the number of representatives it has in Congress. To become president, a candidate must win at least 270 electoral votes. If McCain wins Virginia, New Hampshire, Florida and Ohio but loses Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa to Obama, both candidates could end up with 269 electoral votes. Other, less likely scenarios -- McCain losing Virginia and New Hampshire but winning Michigan, for example -- also could result in a tie. Under the U.S. Constitution, the House would then decide the election when it meets in January, with each state getting one vote -- regardless of its size -- if the chamber has to break a tie. Democrats, who control the 435-seat House, outnumber Republicans in 27 state congressional delegations and could see that number rise in the November elections. Republicans have a majority in 21 state delegations. Two states have an equal number of Republican and Democratic representatives. Some members could feel pressure to vote for the other party's candidate if he carried their state or district or if he won a clear margin of the national popular vote, said Northwestern University law professor Robert Bennett. They would also be under extraordinary pressure from party leaders to stick together. "There would be bargaining in that context and lots of room for rancor and bitterness. It would be a mess," Bennett said. The dispute probably would not be confined to Congress. "Do you believe for one moment that this won't end up in the courts?" Lichtman said. Other possible scenarios, according to Bennett * Before the House meets, the Obama and McCain campaigns could try to convince the Electoral College voters who actually cast each state's electoral votes to switch their support. This has happened occasionally in past elections but has never affected the outcome of an election. Electors in roughly half of the states are bound by law to honor the popular vote. * While the House picks a president, the Senate picks the vice president in the event of a tie. The Democratic-controlled chamber could pick Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden even if McCain wins the House vote. * The newly minted vice president could become acting president if the House doesn't reach a resolution by the time President George W. Bush leaves the White House on Jan. 20. * House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would become acting president if neither chamber could settle on a president or vice president but she would have to resign her post. http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN0534868020081005
Heh I put money on Obama so long ago on intrade. This stuff is so much more stable than that stock market.
My question is, why is the total electoral vote an even number rather than an odd number? Although obviously not on the same scale, but it would like like sports teams play a Best of 6 or Best of 8. This seems to be something easily remedied, and would totally prevent nasty politics that goes with an election ending with a tie.
Well, you know how they choose the number don't you? It's the number of senators plus the number of representatives. 100 senators + 435 representatives + 3 votes given to DC (equal to the number of EV's the smallest states get) = 538. In order to make the electorate an odd number, you'd have to give a state an extra representative (or take one away) or take away 1 of DC's 3 votes. The number of representatives hasn't changed since 1963.
Yes. I know how the process is done. But there's no reason why House needs an odd number of congressmen. If they end up split 50/50 on a particular bill, then it shouldn't pass.
That doesn't make much sense. It would be equally reasonable to say that any tie results in passage - and equally arbitrary. Your scenario gives an extra vote to the opposition of any given bill -- all they would have to do would be to tie in order to defeat a bill. That's why there's a tiebreaker. In the Senate that tiebreaker is the VP. In the electoral college the tiebreaker is the House. That all makes sense to me. After all, you need a tiebreaker. Otherwise the opposition (of any bill or other thing) always has a one vote advantage. To which I am sure you would say... "Meh."
Meh. I think the difference is, it's hard to claim that a law is "must have" for the country when only 1/2 the people(assuming representatives do represent the people) support it. And it shouldn't be a big deal to get it re-written to get that extra vote. Happens all the time right now anyway with all the pork involved in all the bills. OTOH, I think it can be assumed that having 50/50 split in a presidential election can have very negative consequences. And having the House be the tie-breaker is hardly a good method to "unite" the citizens.
