Electoral College Tie this November? It's Very Possible...

[LAGC]

I know this topic was raised during the 2008 elections, but it is even more prescient this time around.

Some VERY interesting hypotheticals on CNN Politics right now:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/26/politics/electoral-college-tie/index.html

What would be the fall-out if there was an Electoral College tie? 269-269, neither Obama or Romney getting the magic 270 number to win?

Election results in key states would immediately be subject to legal challenges. Electors, normally an anonymous batch of party insiders elected to ratify each state's winner with their electoral votes, would be lobbied to change their votes by friends, neighbors and political leaders.

Ultimately, the House of Representatives could elect the next president, even if that candidate lost the popular vote.

"What it would reveal is that we have, in some sense, a profoundly undemocratic mechanism for dealing with a tie," said Alex Keyssar, a professor of history and social policy at Harvard University, and a critic of the Electoral College. "I think there would be an enormous outcry over that."

If you thought the 2000 elections were crazy with all the legal wrangling, this could very well tear at the very fabric of the system!

If the (currently) Republican-dominated House of Representatives chose Romney even though Obama won the popular vote... the OWS protests would look like child's play.

Think people threw a stink over the SCOTUS deciding 5-4 Bush over Gore?

[LongTomH]

1. How about this scenario: A narrow WIN by Obama with....

electors bribed or intimidated ("You got a nice family there.....we know where you live!) into changing their vote.

This is going to be a scary election, right down to the wire! I can easily see the GOP playing dirty tricks even after Mr. Obama is declared the winner.

[LiberalFighter]

8. The electoral college voters are not likely to be persuadable.

They are more than likely selected with approval by appropriate Democratic or Republican officers. The process is generally not known or understood by the regular voters.

[33Greeper]

2. CNN....

the new faux news

[RedStateLiberal]

14. Ha!

That's exactly what I was thinking.

[Odin2005]

3. We've seen this old tale, before.

They are setting the narrative to hide a stolen election, just like 2000.

[PoliticAverse]

4. "Slow news day". n/t

[swayne]

5. It is a HUGE non-issue.

Obama is going to beat Romney by a bigger margin that he beat McCain. The only reason that the election is (supposedly and remotely) close is that the mainstream media sees the President election and coverage as an easy way to get viewers (for a little while).

The election is only close because it is in the media's benefit to position it in that way.

Romney will will his red states and lose the toss-ups. The election will be OVER at 11:00 PM EST on November 6, 2012 and Obama declared the winner, just like the last time.

No reason to pearl-clutch.

[LAGC]

6. I really hope you are right.

But now that "corporations are people too, my friend" there is going to be A LOT of money pouring into swing states in the final weeks leading up to the general election.

Obama being "outgunned" is an understatement, to say the least...

[swayne]

7. Romney is only winning the "wing nuts." People who would never vote for Obama anyway.

The best Romney can do in most polling is almost become even with Obama, never really surpassing Obama.

Look at this electoral map from a decidedly conservative site. If you were a betting person, who would YOU bet on to win, Romney or Obama?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html


I rest my case...

[Chan790]

12. Irrelevant.

It makes good fodder and great campaign solicitations, interesting news and a lot of other things...all of which belies something interesting: campaign money is terribly inefficient at changing the outcomes of elections beyond a minimal funding threshold. (See Bloomy in NYC; poured millions into a race because he was not leading as big as he'd like, ended up winning by less still and voters said they paid no attention to his media blitz. It didn't gain him even a 1% increase in votes to outspend his opponent 3:1.) The reality is that Romney could outspend the President by 10-1 and probably not change the outcome of the election. Once you meet that threshold, you've spent enough to get yourself out there and established, get the voters to know your issues and positions and they're generally decided: The race is over though the election is not. Undecideds don't really break...they typically stay home. (Those that will vote, will tend in the scenario model this race resembles to go to the front-running incumbent.)

Every dollar past said minimal threshold spent in a big election that is not otherwise close is a wasted dollar; its utility is less the dollar spent before it, spiraling to zero-utility. There are not enough toss-up close states on the board for Romney to make a run of this unless something breaks his way...and money isn't it. I mean something race-changing. Another Wall St. collapse, Iran nuking Tel Aviv, a domestic scandal, moral failings, terrorism.

All RMoneyLTD's money won't a victory buy. He needs external factors to trend his way...and to run a better campaign. If I were betting I'd be betting Obama...it's like wagering in the 7th inning up 2 runs.

(I sometimes wonder why I spend $100K to obtain a MA in Political Theory...this isn't one of these times. Romney has already lost and the wankers propping his war-chest are wasting their money. Well...no, it has a stimulative effect. Printing towns tend to be poor, small and rural...the Romney campaign is helping a lot of people get jobs...just not Mitt Romney.)

[Drunken Irishman]

15. The poster is right. It's not going to happen...

North Korea actually winning gold at the Olympics has a higher probability than this ever happening.

Obama might lose, but I guarantee you there will not be a tie. It's just not going to happen. Obama will either win outright, or Romney will win outright - with maybe, though unlikely as well, one of 'em winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college (like '00) - but there won't be a tie.

That would require so many of the swing states acting interdependently of one another that it defies logic, no matter how much the media pushes this potential narrative.

Just tinker around with the map and try to find a 269-269 outcome - you strain to do so.

http://www.270towin.com/

It's damn hard. And it requires some crazy electoral math - like Obama winning Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Florida - yet LOSING Democratic-leaning Wisconsin, Michigan & Pennsylvania. It defies all odds & logic.

[LiberalFighter]

9. CNN doesn't know what they are talking about. Just blowing smoke.

[steve2470]

10. 1825 Contingent election

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1824

Something similar has happened before.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

11. It's either possible or it's not...

whether it's probable is a subject for debate.

[Drunken Irishman]

13. It's not 'very' possible...

It would take a near-perfect storm for that to happen and so many states acting interdependently of one another that I can't buy the possibility even being remote. It's slim - maybe the slimmest of the outcomes.

Even in '00, with the closest election in history, we didn't have a 269-269 tie.

Of all the probabilities, that's most certainly the least likely and maybe has less than 1% chance of actually happening.

Just tinker around with the map and try to find a 269-269 outcome - you strain to do so.

http://www.270towin.com/

It's damn hard. And it requires some crazy electoral math - like Obama winning Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Florida - yet LOSING Democratic-leaning Wisconsin, Michigan & Pennsylvania. It defies all odds & logic.

[NYC Liberal]

16. I'd much prefer the popularly-elected House deciding an election than SCOTUS, honestly.

I don't see why that would be worse than SCOTUS.

But it won't happen. Ever election we hear about the "possibility" of a tie and what would happen.

[Drunken Irishman]

18. The media REALLY loves pushing this one possibility.

I've heard it for four consecutive elections now.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

17. That would be a disaster

However, I believe that it is far more likely that it will decisively break one way or another (more likely than not in President Obama's favor IMHO).

[Marzupialis]

19. The article says "possible" but you typed "very possible"

What's up with that? In fact, it is very unlikely, given the fact that the last time this happened was almost 200 years ago.

[Ter]

20. I want to see it happen once in my lifetime

Either that or a three way race where no one gets 270.