The economy is on the rocks. McCain is suspending his campaign and possibly skipping the first debate (can he DO that?). The Chinese are releasing news articles about their successful manned mission that hasn't started yet. Whatever way you slice it, we live in interesting times.
And it could get more interesting still. Check this out.
Yup, it's a completely plausible scenario - based on current polling data - in which the presidential election is an electoral tie.
Because life just isn't interesting enough yet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
From an NPR story from 2004 that I found on the topic:
Before Congress would get involved, there would be a 41-day opportunity for either side to coax an elector to switch sides. Of the more than 17,000 electors who have been chosen since the days of George Washington, only 10 have been "faithless." One D.C. elector refused to cast a ballot in 2000 (as a protest over the District's lack of voting rights). Before that, a 1988 Michael Dukakis elector in West Virginia decided to vote for his running mate, Lloyd Bentsen. So who knows what could happen? But let's say that when the electoral college members meet in their respective state capitals on Dec. 13 (41 days after the election), the result is a 269-269 tie. The election then goes to the House.
Each state's delegation in the House gets one vote; that's true whether it's California, with its 53 members, or Wyoming, with its one member. If a state's delegation is split evenly, it would abstain from voting.
... An electoral-vote tie happened once in history. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr each received 73 electoral votes. The House voted 10-4 (with two abstentions) for Jefferson.
(The Senate does have a role; it chooses the vice president. Each senator gets one vote. Would Vice President Cheney be allowed to break a 50-50 tie? That's probably unlikely. A tie vote -- God help us -- would no doubt lead to the Supreme Court deciding.)
Post a Comment