T Nation

In Case of An Electoral Tie?

I was taking a look at an interactive electoral map, (CNN) and made some adjustments based on recent Rasmussen data.

I see McCain taking Florida, North Carolina, Missouri, and Ohio.

Now while Obama is ahead in the Colorado and Virgina polls, then if what happened in the primary, (where Obama over polled by ~5%) then McCain could take Colorado and Virginia.

When I used this to see what would happen with the interactive map, (changing all others to whomever that state was leaning) the result was an electoral tie.

For anyone who does not know what happens next, the vote moves to the House of Representatives, where each state gets 1 vote. (That’ll be fun.)

You can guess who wins then.

Each State gets one vote, or each representative?

If each state gets just one vote, McCain has a huge advantage. If each representative gets a vote - new baby jesus wins.

But all-in-all, there is no winner in this race.

I have been an avid follower of presidential elections since 1984, and this is the first time in 28 years that I have no desire to follow the returns as they come in.

We need a revolution.

[quote]rainjack wrote:

But all-in-all, there is no winner in this race.
[/quote]

Agreed. We’ve all lost, no matter what happens.

“Never before has the ignorance of the electorate been so intensely cultivated as in this election.”

[quote]rainjack wrote:
We need a revolution. [/quote]

There is already a peaceful revolution of ideas going on right now. The simplest way to describe it is: statism v. limited government/non-statism.

The argument between liberal/democrat v. conservative/republican cannot stand any longer because there is essentially no difference between the two when it comes to their solutions. The established opinion is that more government is better than less it is just a matter of how the republicans v. the democrats wish to institute that solution.

Seriously, if we want a bigger and more wide spread revolution we must educate ourselves on the philosophy of liberty and spread the message of its possibilities. In other words we must inspire people to want real “change”.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Each State gets one vote, or each representative?[/quote]

…The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two?thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice…

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt12_user.html

[quote]The Mage wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Each State gets one vote, or each representative?

…The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two?thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice…

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt12_user.html

[/quote]

This could be very interesting.

I still think McCain wins if it actually goes this far because most of the left is concentrated in a few large states.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
We need a revolution.

There is already a peaceful revolution of ideas going on right now. The simplest way to describe it is: statism v. limited government/non-statism.

The argument between liberal/democrat v. conservative/republican cannot stand any longer because there is essentially no difference between the two when it comes to their solutions. The established opinion is that more government is better than less it is just a matter of how the republicans v. the democrats wish to institute that solution.

Seriously, if we want a bigger and more wide spread revolution we must educate ourselves on the philosophy of liberty and spread the message of its possibilities. In other words we must inspire people to want real “change”.[/quote]

Lifty, I agree.

However, given the current state of education and the politically-charged media, I’m not very sanguine about American voters and their capacity, or willingness or ability to learn about the nature of liberty: what it is, how to protect it, and what its enemies are.

At least, not until we undergo a period of protracted education about the dangers of collectivism, and thereby newly rediscover the importance of liberty and the institutions that protect it.

What we had - if even briefly, if even imperfect - was unique in the history of the world, and a beautiful thing. Too bad our teachers and educational systems have been drilling the opposite into the heads of our children for the past 30 years.

[quote]rainjack wrote:

This could be very interesting.

I still think McCain wins if it actually goes this far because most of the left is concentrated in a few large states.

[/quote]

Nope. Dems hold an advantage in 27 states. An electoral vote tie means Obama victory.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/datacenter/tievote.html

Who wants to make a bet that we’ll be referring to the “Grant Park riots of November 4th 2008” for years to come?

[quote]tedro wrote:
rainjack wrote:

This could be very interesting.

I still think McCain wins if it actually goes this far because most of the left is concentrated in a few large states.

Nope. Dems hold an advantage in 27 states. An electoral vote tie means Obama victory.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/datacenter/tievote.html[/quote]

That is more than I had imagined, but if it is close, McCain still wins - despite the dem advantage.

People will listen to their constituency, and any given state will likely go the way the electoral college went.

Obama will only win about 20 states tops in the electoral college.

And we will be back to the selected not elected mantra again.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
tedro wrote:
rainjack wrote:

This could be very interesting.

I still think McCain wins if it actually goes this far because most of the left is concentrated in a few large states.

Nope. Dems hold an advantage in 27 states. An electoral vote tie means Obama victory.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/datacenter/tievote.html

That is more than I had imagined, but if it is close, McCain still wins - despite the dem advantage.

People will listen to their constituency, and any given state will likely go the way the electoral college went.

Obama will only win about 20 states tops in the electoral college. [/quote]

The votes for congress will already have been cast, the representatives won’t need to worry about the repercussions for two years.

I don’t have a lot of faith that Pelosi influenced democrats will vote with their constituency, especially with the saviour of the new world on the line.

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Too bad our teachers and educational systems have been drilling the opposite into the heads of our children for the past 30 years.
[/quote]

Thank you department of education. I am a victim of that system so there is still hope.

[quote]tedro wrote:

The votes for congress will already have been cast, the representatives won’t need to worry about the repercussions for two years.

I don’t have a lot of faith that Pelosi influenced democrats will vote with their constituency, especially with the saviour of the new world on the line.
[/quote]

I think there will be some states that will vote against their constituency. But I think more of them will listen.

Who knows?

Maybe out of all this, there will be a new conservative movement rise from the ashes. I would really like to have something to vote for instead of against.

It would be an interesting scenario to have the House vote on the election, but that is very unlikely to happen.

CNN is predicting Obama will get 291 electoral votes and McCain will get 157, with 90 electoral votes up for grabs. You need 270 votes to win, so even if McCain got all 90 of the marginal votes, he would still lose.

That’s exactly what we’re getting, thank god. I can’t wait to see Bush disappear from my tv screen forever.

[quote]forlife wrote:
It would be an interesting scenario to have the House vote on the election, but that is very unlikely to happen.

CNN is predicting Obama will get 291 electoral votes and McCain will get 157, with 90 electoral votes up for grabs. You need 270 votes to win, so even if McCain got all 90 of the marginal votes, he would still lose.

We need a revolution.

That’s exactly what we’re getting, thank god. I can’t wait to see Bush disappear from my tv screen forever.[/quote]

You will get that no matter who wins today. The fact that you think you need a revolution to get rid of a 2-term president shows your level of knowledge of the political process.

This is not a revolution. This is mind-dead asswipes wanting other people’s money without having to work for it.

We need a real revolution where people are willing to fight to defend the original precepts of the constitution.

I wouldn’t put too much stock in the CNN stuff. They have been wrong far more often than they have been right on election day.

In case of an electoral tie, it should go to Paul. What the hell. I don’t really care if it makes sense.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
This is not a revolution. This is mind-dead asswipes wanting other people’s money without having to work for it.
[/quote]

What you meant to say was that it is not a revolution you approve of. By anyone’s call though, it is a revolution. The country will be run very differently beginning in 2009, and I can’t wait.

[quote]forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
This is not a revolution. This is mind-dead asswipes wanting other people’s money without having to work for it.

What you meant to say was that it is not a revolution you approve of. By anyone’s call though, it is a revolution. The country will be run very differently beginning in 2009, and I can’t wait.
[/quote]

It’s not a revolution at all. It is a change in leadership.

It would be no different than McCain winning.

You evidently don’t understand the meaning of a revolution. Go look it up, and then come back when you figure it out.

[quote]forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
This is not a revolution. This is mind-dead asswipes wanting other people’s money without having to work for it.

What you meant to say was that it is not a revolution you approve of. By anyone’s call though, it is a revolution. The country will be run very differently beginning in 2009, and I can’t wait.
[/quote]

You are one of the many left-wingers who is going to be sorely disappointed when it is essentially business as usual under President Obama.