Showing posts with label electoral college tie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label electoral college tie. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Electoral Votes versus Popular Votes



There is a renewed interest in the Electoral College across the US right now. Many people are disenfranchised with their party’s candidate, and are wondering whether or not voting for a third party candidate will help or hinder the other party.
The big question out there is can a candidate win without 50% of the popular vote? And how does the Electoral College really work? There are a lot of people out there right now unhappy with both Trump and Clinton, and are turning to Johnson out of desperation. But does Johnson have a chance at winning? Or will his presence make a real difference in keeping someone else from winning? There are even people who hope that maybe former Governor Mitt Romney could somehow win as a write-in candidate.
The bottom line is this- right now, it is very possible that the Electoral College results will not reflect the popular vote. And it is also very possible that if enough people continue to show their support for a third party candidate, that the electoral college will not produce a winner, and the presidency will be determined by the lame duck Congress and Senate.
But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. Let’s start back at the beginning.
Instead of selecting a president based on how many votes they receive, the Founding Fathers established what's called the Electoral College. Each state gets the same number of electors as it has Congressmen and Senators -- and the bigger the state, the more electors it has.  (In all but 2 states (Maine and Nebraska), the winner of the popular vote will get all of the Electoral College votes.)
There are a total of 538 electors. A candidate needs the vote of more than half (270) to win the Presidential election. There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states. Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties*. Throughout history more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.
It is possible to win the presidency without winning the popular vote. In 2000, President George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Vice President Al Gore by .51% but won the Electoral College 271 to 266.  (Who voted that year and doesn’t remember the significance of the “hanging chad?”)
In 2012 President Barack Obama got 51% of the nationwide votes, narrowly defeating Governor Mitt Romney in the popular vote. But those votes translated into 61% of the Electoral College votes, giving the illusion of an overwhelming victory.  Winning in key states with the larger number of electoral votes matters.
As of 5pm Eastern time on July 27, 2016, neither Donald Trump or Secretary Hillary Clinton has over 50% of the popular vote according to polls. As of this moment, Real Clear Politics polling average shows Trump at 45.7% and Clinton at 44.6%.  If you change it to a 3-way race, and include Governor Gary Johnson, it changes to Trump 39.6, Clinton 39.2, and Johnson 8.6.
It is of great significance that if you then translate those votes into electoral votes that the situation shifts into Clinton’s favor. According to the popular website “270 to win” Clinton currently has 241 electoral votes, while Trump only has 105, with 125 “toss up” votes too close to determine. (Which means Trump and Clinton are within 5 percentage points of each other, making it too close to call.) Those 125 votes will easily give Clinton the remaining 29. (All she has to do is win Florida to make that happen.)  Obviously, the Trump campaign will do everything in its power to gain traction in those gray states.  Johnson does have a fighting chance in Utah and New Mexico, but the 11 votes between the two states won’t make much of a difference.
Real Clear Politics shows Clinton/Kaine with 202 electoral votes, Trump/Pence with 164, and 172 toss up votes. RCP was updated as of July 25, 270 to win was update July 19.
But we have to go back to the importance of the difference between the words majority and popular. Remember that only 2 states divide up the electoral votes to represent the popular votes. All of the other states are winner-takes-all. In other words, a vote for a third party candidate could throw the election in favor of a different party in those states.
But let’s keep going with the “what if” game. What if no one gets enough electoral votes? It’s highly unlikely at this point, but in this completely unprecedented election year, anything could happen.
What happens if no one wins the Electoral College? What happens next? If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. (In other words, forget drafting Mitt Romney. He could only win as a write-in, and not in the Electoral College.)
The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. (In other words, Johnson’s running mate, Gov. Bill Weld, has almost no hope of winning an office.) Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House. 
I won’t decide for you whether or not voting third party will make a difference in this election. Everyone should vote their conscience and for the candidate they believe in. And no one interested in voting third party should be discouraged by this information. If there is anything we have learned in this election cycle it’s that the unbelievable, unprecedented, and impossible can happen. And we’ve definitely seen that there are people out there who aren’t happy with the status quo. If enough people forget about loyalty to labels and vote their conscience, this could be the year that the Electoral College changes.
*One last thought- It could also be the year that the Electoral College doesn’t follow historic precedent. There is no federal law that requires electors to vote as they have pledged. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have legal control over how their electors vote in the Electoral College. This means their electors are bound by state law and/or by state or party pledge to cast their vote for the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote. At the same time, this also means that there are 21 states in the union that have no requirements of, or legal control over, their electors. Therefore, despite the outcome of a state’s popular vote, the state’s electors are ultimately free to vote in whatever manner they please, including an abstention, with no legal repercussions.
What happens if an Elector violates the state law? It’s a misdemeanor or small fine, usually only $1,000.
The states where Electors are bound – Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming.
Notable battleground states where Electors are not bound- Florida and Georgia.

Saturday, November 3, 2012

Possible Election Outcomes and What Happens if there is a Tie??

Tuesday is coming! Tuesday is coming!
And finally all of the political ads and polling calls will end!! YEAH!!!

Real Clear Politics (and several other outlets) have some useful tools for creating your own electoral results map. My best guess for the electoral college is below.I scrolled my page so that I couldn't see the electoral count total at the top, so I wouldn't be tempted to swing a state one way or the other to make my candidate win.  I was very surprised by the total number in the end. I didn't realize a tie was a possibility in the electoral college!

(I created my own electoral map on Real Clear Politics.)
Any time there was a 2 or 3 point spread, I gave it to the higher party. If there was only a 0-2 point spread I gave it to the underdog, IF and only if the chart shows an upward trend in recent weeks for the underdog. The only 2 states I really don't think anyone can call are Virginia and Colorado. I gave both to Romney using my underdog trending upward theory. And because you don't see a lot of Obama supporters in my town. I also called Nevada for Romney based on the fact that in the past it has gone Republican, except in 2008.

So what happens if there is a tie at the electoral college? Some fascinating stuff I tell you. And a strong scenario for a Romney-Biden administration.
Say what?
Oh yes.
Time for a lesson on the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, the Electoral College, and the calendar that will blow your mind.
We vote on November 6.
Sometime between Nov 6 and Dec 11 the electoral representatives gather with their states to formally declare that their state will be voting a certain way.
(Ahem, people are already raising the Ron Paul disruption flag here. I have no desire to address that right now. Maybe I will if and when there really is a tie.)
The electoral college will be held on December 17th. The votes are cast, but not counted.
The votes are formally counted on January 6.
NOTE- The new 113th Congress will swear-in on January 3rd!
Therefore it is the NEW House of Representatives that counts the votes for president. The new Senate counts the votes for VP. If there is a tie, the 12th Amendment declares that the House then gets to vote and decide who will be the president. And the Senate will vote on who gets the VP seat.
SIGNIFICANT DETAIL- The new House is expected to go overwhelmingly GOP. But the Senate is still a toss up!
And because our Founding Fathers never really cared for a majority of the popular vote of anything, the winner must win with a 2/3rds majority! And the Senate will most likely be 50/50!
Who casts the deciding vote when the Senate is all tied up?
The vice president!
You know, VP Biden.
Yes, it is possible that he would then have to cast the deciding vote for the VP. Does he vote for himself or Paul Ryan in that scenario??
Another interesting conundrum- if you are the newly elected congressperson, and you are a Republican, but your district voted for Obama for president, who do you vote for in your first ever chance to vote in the House? Your party or your people???

(Source: An Electoral College Tie Would Be an Hilarious Disaster, Huffington Post)

Now, another suggestion from my polluted late-night mind-

Sadly, we all know that New York has been suffered a lot of devastation from Hurricane Sandy. Much of the 5 boroughs are still under water and without electricity. This is likely to effect voter turnout. They are already talking about consolidating precincts (and when people don't know where to go vote they don't turn out), and how many precincts have no power.
New York is firmly in the blue right now. Obama has a 26% lead over Romney.
BUT! If voter turnout is low in the boroughs, could the rest of the state sway the overall vote?
Take a look at these older maps-



The top map is Bush/Kerry, the bottom is Obama/McCain. Both times the state went for the Democrat. But look at how much of the state is actually red! Personally I feel that the Bush/Kerry models are more accurate than the Obama/McCain models because McCain never had the support that Romney does now.
In my humble opinion, without the boroughs New York is in play. The overall vote is more important than the county results. And if few people turn out to vote in the boroughs, that can really sway things.

FACT CHECK- I am fairly certain that I am right about overall vote versus county results. I have heard that this is not the case in all states. I can't find any information to indicate I am wrong about New York.

If you pull New York out of the "strong Obama" category and move it to "leaning Romney" you really have a toss up scenario.

One more detail to note- New York has a little known law that allows them to hold a second voting day in case of a natural disaster!

(In all fairness, I applied this same logic to New Jersey which was also hard hit by the storm. However, the state overall is fairly split blue and red, but no one side of the state is more red or blue.) 

Here are a few more maps and the way these major publications are calling it-

CNN electoral map with toss-ups Obama 237, Romney 206. 

NY Times with toss-ups., Obama 243, Romney 206. The major difference between NYT and CNN is NYT is calling Nevada for Obama. 

Real Clear Politics with no toss-ups. Obama 290, Romney 248. 

All 3 publications are calling Nevada for Obama. I personally think this is a mistake. Nevada is currently Obama 50, Romney 47.3. Romney has never had the lead in Nevada, but he is on an upward trend there. I think that is a good sign he could catch up and win. And I have a hard time believing that in the end the Mormons won't come out and really win it for him. That is the only state I truly disagree with the polls on. I really do thing the rest of the toss up states are unpredictable at this point.

And more than anything, I think there is little to no chance of this election actually getting settled and answered on Tuesday night.