Overtime? Electoral Votes 269-269?

Today, I cam across a couple very cool websites dealing with the polls and electoral votes and such.

One of which, www.fivethirtyeight.com, has awesome analysis of the polls, and past voting records for every election back to 1948. The other, www.270towin.com, has a simulator of the election that looks at the most recent polls, and then turn those numbers into probabilities for the simulation. I ran a it a few times and got a 269-269 electoral college tie.

The simulation gave Obama: HI, CA, OR, WA, NV, MN, IA, MO, WI, IL, NC, DC, MD, DE, PA, NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, VT and ME for a total of 269.

It gave McCain: AK, ID, UT, AZ, NM, CO, WY, MT, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, LA, AR, MS, AL, TN, KY, IN, MI, OH, WV, VA, SC, GA, FL, and NH also for a total of 269.

I don't know how likely the scenario is, but what would happen if Obama and McCain TIE in the Electoral College? Is there 'OVERTIME' in an election? What are the rules?

More importantly, what would the ramifications be for our society if the there is a 269 vote tie? Personally, I don't know how much more I can take...

DocMoreau

Edit to add....
Maybe I should have looked before I put the discussion to my fellow members, I found a very interesting NPR article from 2004, when the same question was asked. Either way, I think the discussion is important.
www.npr.org...

“If neither candidate received an electoral-vote majority -- then the election would be thrown into the House. And, I suspect, the country would be thrown into a crisis that would make Florida 2000 look like a picnic.”

[edit on 16/9/2008 by DocMoreau]

Overtime should be concluded by a game of horse (basketball). To be honest Doc, I have not trusted the elections for the last eight years. I would not be surprised by any shenanigans.

Originally posted by jpm1602
Overtime should be concluded by a game of horse (basketball). To be honest Doc, I have not trusted the elections for the last eight years. I would not be surprised by any shenanigans.

I have not trusted them for the past 8 years either. It also has made me question past elections as well.

One of the things I am having a hard time with is how to personally cope with the wholesale corruption that seems to go on at the highest levels, but everyday Joes get left with the messes.

Like the whole Wallstreet thing going on right now, I find it so strange to hear pundits yammer on about not burdening the Taxpayer with bailing out some bank, but there is not a word said about limiting the amount of burden the taxpayer has been left with to the tune of 10 Billion a month.

A 269-269 tie scares the crap out of me. Listen to the craziness...

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.

www.npr.org...


Either way, I am praying for a clean election,
DocMoreau

reply to post by DocMoreau


Strange to see this posting. I just ran electoral college simulators at both CNN and NPR and came up with scenarios I thought were likely and got a 269/269 tie as well.

In the case of a tie the decision goes to Congress.
scottyurb.blogspot.com...

1. November 4, 2008: When voters vote in presidential elections, they are actually voting for a slate of electors (usually nominated by state parties) who are pledged to vote for a specific Pres/VP ticket.

2. December 15, 2008: Those electors will gather in their state capitals to officially vote for the new President and VP on the Monday following the second Wednesday in December. In some states (but not all), it is entirely possible that one elector will vote for the candidates opposite the ones for whom they were pledged to vote, and thus break the tie.

3. January 6, 2009, or thereabouts: Shortly after the 111th Congress convenes, Congress will meet in joint session to officially count the electoral votes. If a candidate receives at least 270 electoral votes, they are elected.

4. If no candidate receives 270, however, Congress settles the matter. Amendment XII tells us how that would work.

...the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing 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. ...

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; ... and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice.

* I am starting to fear this will be an actual scenario. As long as the Democrats maintain a majority in Congress we can expect that in the case of a tie it will go to Obama.

** If this occurs then between Novemeber 4th (popular vote) and December 15th (meeting of the electoral college to elect the president...I think we can expect anything goes politics. DELEGATES DO NOT HAVE TO VOTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHO THEY REPRESENT. Though it is profoundly unusual for them to vote in discordance with there respective voting populations...they still can decide not to. This means if it is a tie there will be pressure from one side or both to "TURN DELEGATES" and break the tie. It would be unprecidented, but for goodness sake look at the election so far. I think in the case of a tie it will be all out chaos and anything goes.

A tie on the heels of 2000 where Bush lost the popular vote, but won the electoral vote would have profound implications to American politics.

The resulting division in this country that would occur in the case of a tie?
It would be the utter culmination of the politics of division.

I'd prefer one candidate win outright. If it is a tie, then ther is no way to emerge from the election without half the country feeling as if they have been thoroughly disinfranchised.

reply to post by maybereal11


Excellent post!

Thanks for all the clarity on what would happen in a 269-269 tie.

I totally agree with what you said in regard to the disenfranchisement half of America will feel if something like this occurs.

I thinks some people have said here at ATS that they feel that Kerry didn't contest Ohio in 2004 because of how divisive it would have been. I imagine that this would be a magnitude 10 of 2000.

DocMoreau

The much more likely tie scenario would be Obama winning New Mexico, Nevada, and Iowa; with everything else staying the same as 2004. I think there's at least a 33% chance that will happen, I'm surprised it's not getting talked about in the media that much.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


I think if the talking heads and pundits talk about a 269 vote tie too soon, then they might lose drama for November 'Sweeps'...

On a similar note, I read somewhere here on ATS that the media plays the campaigns against each other for ad dollars. I think it was in one of the the threads discussing how McCain was fuming over the lack of media attention he was getting.

They would lose all the ad revenues if Obama were leading 60-30, with 10% undecided, or vice versa. A close race means millions of dollars in the network coffers.
DocMoreau

I don't think many people know that when we vote for president that we are voting for a slate of electors, as was stated earlier. As I was thinking about this 269 tie, I thought of something that I think would make the country go even more nuts than the 2000 election. I read, I think that it was on 270towin.com that in 2004, John Edwards got one electoral vote for President due to someones error. Imagine what would happen if someone wasn't being careless and didn't vote "correctly" and handed the other guy the presidentcy [An Obama elector voting for Sarah Palin accidently making the tally 269-268-1]. Of course this would assume that a mess up like this wouldn't be intentional. I think I would just stay in my house for months if I was that guy. People would want him tarred and feathered!

reply to post by octotom


I agree. Especially after the debacle of Florida in 2000. You would think that the 'majority' would have learned that even though Al Gore won the popular vote, he lost....

I just had a thought.... What does the timeline after 2000 look like? It would be interesting how those 41 days may have been a factor in 2000.

DocMoreau

From Wikipedia

On January 6, 2001, a joint-session of Congress met to certify the electoral vote. Twenty members of the House of Representatives, most of them Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus, rose one-by-one to file objections to the electoral votes of Florida. However, according to an 1877 law, any such objection had to be sponsored by both a representative and a senator. No senator would co-sponsor these objections, deferring to the Supreme Court's ruling. Therefore, Gore, who was presiding in his capacity as President of the Senate, ruled each of these objections out of order.

I guess it almost happened the way we were discussing. Too bad no Senator stood up with them. Alternative Universe....

I really liked this anecdotal tidbit from the wiki:

Under the recount rules initially requested by Gore, Bush would have won, and under the rules requested by Bush, Gore would have won.

Right now, a 269 tie is not looking likely, and may be all McCain is fighting for at this point.

DocMoreau

reply to post by DocMoreau


Unless theres an act of god. MI wouldnt be considered to be for McCain.
Christ even our Republican Governor went to florida to speak on Obamas behalf.

I know things can change....diebold...acorn...
But this is how its falling today.....and there are day to day changes.

Obama/Biden 306 McCain/Palin 157 Toss Up 75
259 Solid 47 Leaning 137 Solid 20 Leaning 75 Toss Up

This is from www.realclearpolitics.com

Isn't MI's governor a Democrat? I'm pretty sure that she is because the hosts on talk radio don't like her that much.

EDIT: Yup she is. en.wikipedia.org...

She's Canadian too. That's kinda interesting.

[edit on 10/25/2008 by octotom]

Thanks for the numbers from Real Clear Politics.

In some ways, since the economy took a dump, and the polls shot towards Obama, I have felt that the Mainstream Media has been doin dance to distract from the way that things were leaning. I also feel that they have been doing it because a close election gives them more dollars from each campaign and from advertisers trying to catch viewers eyes during the election season.

That is why I really like the websites that 'aggregate' the results of many polls to find a clearer picture.

www.pollster.com... has 311 Dem, 142 Rep, with 85 Toss Up

www.fivethirtyeight.com... has 340.2 Dem, 197.8 Rep with a 96.3% chance of Dem victory.

www.270towin.com... has and average of 342 Dem, 196 Rep with a 98.8% chance of Dem victory.

It is not looking like much of a tie right now.
DocMoreau