[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: 2008- The year the electoral college comes crashing down 2008- The year the electoral college comes crashing down by JakeC [Subscribe] First off- this is not a prediction by any means. There are far too many variables being described below to make a prediction. Rather, this is a description of some of the more interesting ways a Bloomberg candidacy could screw up the election, given the ways the electoral college works. There are plenty of other diaries that have already speculated as to whether a Bloomberg candidacy hurts the Democrats, and how much. I believe that in all likelihood Bloomberg hurts the Democrats more than the Republicans, but I really have no idea how much. Clearly, he would draw the same votes that the Democrats are competing for. Moreover, he would run strongest in the same states that the Democrats are counting on winning- the northeast, middle Atlantic, and the west coast. I don’t know that he would prevent the Democrats from getting a plurality in those states; that remains to be seen. In fact, even if he ultimately doesn’t prevent the Democrats from winning those states, he could still harm the Democratic candidate by making the margin in those states closer and forcing the Democrats to play defense. But, for the purposes of this diary, let’s assume that Bloomberg is strong enough to actually win a couple of states- let’s say New York and New Jersey. Now let’s assume that the Republican candidate gets the plurality of the electoral votes, but doesn’t reach the magic 270 needed. (While we are at it, let’s give the Republican the plurality of the popular vote as well). The election gets thrown to the newly elected House. But- it doesn’t go to the House to vote one member per vote- rather, each state gets one vote. So, each state’s House delegation would vote amongst themselves as to who their state was going to support. In the event of a tie within the state delegation- well, Wikipedia says that state abstains, although I have not been able to confirm that elsewhere. (This has only happened twice, in 1800 and 1824). As of right now (again, using Wikipedia), it appears the Democrats control 26 state delegations and the Republicans control 20. But, it would be up to the newly elected House to decide, not the current one, so the exact makeup isn’t known. As to what happens if no candidate gets a majority of state delegations- I have no idea. As for Vice-President- the Senate chooses the winner, and it’s one vote per Senator. In all likelihood, that means the Democrats will control the Vice Presidency, since they will almost certainly have at least 51 Senate seats. Of course, here’s an interesting thought- if the Senate is evenly divided, guess who would pick the new Vice President- yup, that’s right, Dick Cheney would choose his own successor (since the executive branch stays on until January 20, while the new Senate is sworn on January 1st.) So, let’s look at some scenario’s that could occur. The Democrats retain control of a majority of state delegations and select the Democratic nominee. The US has a President who did not get a plurality of either the popular or electoral votes. Lovely. The Democrats either don’t retain control of a majority of state delegations, or lose control as some blue dog Democrats feel compelled to vote for the candidate their state chose (keep in mind, their isn’t a lot of scenarios in which the Republicans don’t carry the majority of states). Given that the Republican also got a plurality of both electoral and popular votes, I don’t know that this isn’t a real possibility. The Republican wins, with a Democratic Vice President (the biggest nightmare of the Secret Service has to be this kind of split), and the left wing of the Democrat party refocuses it’s efforts on taking down a bunch of Democratic Congressmen. Neither side is able to command a majority of state delegations. This could be because the math works out that way, or because of a bunch of wavering Congressmen who want to work out a way to avoid having to decide the new President (the above mentioned blue dogs, for instance, who see it as a no win scenario). Now, the party leaders have to sit down and do some old fashioned compromising. Maybe they agree on a split Presidency like above (but, since it’s being negotiated, it could be split with either party controlling the Presidency, and the other controlling the Senate). Or, how about this wacky idea- what if they get together, and agree to elect Bloomberg? Could happen. For one, he will likely appeal to each side more than the other parties’ candidate on the issues. More important- neither side would see him as a significant threat in 2012 as an incumbent. Hell, they could even get Bloomberg to commit to not running for re-election. Both sides figure four years of gridlock is better than risking letting the other side win. Or, same as number 3, but the two sides can’t agree on a solution. So, who becomes the President? Well, one interpretation would be that Nancy Pelosi would be sworn in (assuming she remains the Speaker- if the Republicans retake the House, or the Democrats select a new leader, then it would be that person) if both the House and Senate were to deadlock on picking the President and Vice President (I have no idea if the vote for Vice President would be subject to a filibuster). Which also leads to an interesting idea, related to number 3- theoretically the leaders in the House could get together and decide they need to settle on a compromise candidate, but rather than take Bloomberg, choose a Representive who they can all support. They then elect that person as Speaker, and never agree on the winner of the 2008 election. Of course, this is only if both the Senate and House deadlock- if the House deadlocks, and the Senate chooses a Vice President, then that person would be President until the House resolves itself (so yes, Cheney could break the tie and choose the next President). What happens if the House never resolves itself, and then a new House is sworn in 2010? Could they turn around at that point and select a new President? Could be fun. Except it could also be a disaster
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||