|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Essay talk:Electoral college 269-269 tie
Nervous[edit]
Don't be nervous about this scenario happening...just take a deep breath and let the vice prez debate on Thursday play out and be at ease. Speakerface 13:44, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
- Most likely tie scenario to me seems Obama wins every Gore state plus Colorado. That's 269. It still most likely means a win for Obama though. DickTurpis 13:51, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
- What was most disturbing for me, in the context of the Red state/Blue state divide, was how plausible that map seemed. If the 269-269 needed a more haphazard blue/red look, I wouldn't have thought much about it. --Edgerunner76Save me Jebus! 14:02, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
Other less likely scenario: states where Obama is currently leading by most polls (Gore + CO, NH), then swap MI for VA. DickTurpis 14:03, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
- 4 scenarios:
- DickTurpis 13:09, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
Absolutely Nothing to Worry About[edit]
Seriously. This can't really happen. Electors can be and have been "faithless;" that is, they have cast their electoral vote in opposition to the one they are required to give as an elector. It counts as an electoral college vote, however. And in fact, few states have real penalties attached to faithlessness. It wouldn't really be punished. So even if there is a tie - an unimaginably unlikely scenario in this election, since Obama will probably win with at least thirty electoral votes and maybe more - at least one elector would be faithless and personally choose the President.
Not possible, in other words.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 12:46, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
- While there have been faithless electors, there has never been one that decided an election, whole new ball game. And they are appointed by the state, and usually high ranking party officials or elected politicians. In a 269-269 tie I think each party would be very careful about who they picked. tmtoulouse 12:48, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
- Out of 538 individuals, it doesn't seem reasonable to think that not a single one would not succumb to the power, the fame, or the pecuniary rewards for faithlessness. Hell, out of 50 individuals that would be a long shot. But 538? Compounding the high unlikelihood of a tie in the first place, the probability of 528 honest men pushes this into the realm of the unlikely-nigh-impossible.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 12:50, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
- It would wind up in the supreme court, keep in mind that their are states that require voters to "pledge" and if they go against their pledge can be removed and have their votes changed. So that narrows down the number that can actually change. tmtoulouse 12:55, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
- Another point, Obama would likely win an election in congress, so none of his voters would likely change sides, cutting it down further. tmtoulouse 12:56, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
- Only two states have reversion laws that would change the elector's vote, actually, so that doesn't narrow it more than a few electors. And you're assuming that the electors would all be motivated by party loyalty. If they were loyal to the party, they wouldn't be faithless. But imagine the immense wealth that could come with being faithless if it fell into the hands of a clever and unscrupulous person. Or the simple prestige and fame. A red-state Democratic state senator could be governor if he was faithless for McCain.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 13:05, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
- Has there been a case of a faithless elector crossing party lines? tmtoulouse 13:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
- Not for a very long time. But they don't have to do that. Any faithlessness at all would toss the election in a tie. Think about it.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 13:13, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
- Has there been a case of a faithless elector crossing party lines? tmtoulouse 13:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
- Only two states have reversion laws that would change the elector's vote, actually, so that doesn't narrow it more than a few electors. And you're assuming that the electors would all be motivated by party loyalty. If they were loyal to the party, they wouldn't be faithless. But imagine the immense wealth that could come with being faithless if it fell into the hands of a clever and unscrupulous person. Or the simple prestige and fame. A red-state Democratic state senator could be governor if he was faithless for McCain.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 13:05, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
- Out of 538 individuals, it doesn't seem reasonable to think that not a single one would not succumb to the power, the fame, or the pecuniary rewards for faithlessness. Hell, out of 50 individuals that would be a long shot. But 538? Compounding the high unlikelihood of a tie in the first place, the probability of 528 honest men pushes this into the realm of the unlikely-nigh-impossible.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 12:50, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
It doesn't take faithless electors to have a electoral tie. There are at least three entirely possible scenarios which can lead to that outcome. DickTurpis 12:57, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
- I was discussing how faithless electors would break a tie, actually.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 13:05, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
- Oops. Misread that. In any case. I doubt the electors would be unfaithful to their candidate. It rarely happens, and in a case like this, it would be even less likely. They don't pick just anyone to be an elector. And if one were to be faithless, the probability of them picking the rival candidate (instead of, say, Hillary Clinton) is tiny. DickTurpis 13:08, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
- It's unlikely when it comes to any individual elector. But with 500-odd, I would say the odds that just one of them would be faithless are very reasonable. And I suggest you think about your latter scenario a bit... if a Democrat in a tie is faithless and votes for Clinton, then McCain wins ;) --Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 13:12, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
- Are we sure about this? Does it simply go to the "largest holder of votes" or do you need an actual majority to win? tmtoulouse 13:24, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
- You need a majority: 270 votes. DickTurpis 13:25, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
- Hence this election was decided by the House. DickTurpis 13:28, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
- Is that true? Wow, it is. I guess your point is solid.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 13:31, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
- Are we sure about this? Does it simply go to the "largest holder of votes" or do you need an actual majority to win? tmtoulouse 13:24, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
- It's unlikely when it comes to any individual elector. But with 500-odd, I would say the odds that just one of them would be faithless are very reasonable. And I suggest you think about your latter scenario a bit... if a Democrat in a tie is faithless and votes for Clinton, then McCain wins ;) --Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 13:12, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
- Oops. Misread that. In any case. I doubt the electors would be unfaithful to their candidate. It rarely happens, and in a case like this, it would be even less likely. They don't pick just anyone to be an elector. And if one were to be faithless, the probability of them picking the rival candidate (instead of, say, Hillary Clinton) is tiny. DickTurpis 13:08, 2 October 2008 (EDT)