I suspect neither side of the political divide wants to see the presidential race end up in a 269-269 tie, but with the possibility out there, Congress is making the preparations, should they be necessary.
Many people realize that a tie electoral college will send the presidential election to the House. It would not, however, be a simple majority-rule vote. Instead of each House member getting a vote, each state gets a vote. The first to get 26 states wins. Because Republicans hold majorities in 30 states, Bush would be poised for a victory in the event of an unlikely tie. But, Congress being Congress, the possibility for curveballs remain.
First, the House has to prepare for the possibility that it could decide the next president for the first time in 180 years. The Hill reported today that GOP leaders are establishing new procedures now.
The GOP leaders’ proposed rule change would lock more certainty into the process and ensure that the party’s numerical advantage is not unexpectedly squandered.
Leadership-backed rules changes generally pass on a party-line vote.
One of the adjustments would dictate what to do in the even that a state delegation was deadlocked. The Constitution does not spell out that these delegations would be removed from the tally, but that is what the GOP leadership would likely propose.
There is no rule on whether states must canvass their members in private or in public, nor whether a member may request a secret ballot within the delegation.
“There’s no real model to look after,” said one House leadership aide, who said leaders might just “leave it up to the states” to decide how to award their vote.
“Or we could micromanage a scenario where the procedures for the delegations to decide their vote for president in the House of Representatives will be X. That procedure would be adopted for the whole House.”
Given the circumstances, I think micromanagement seems like a safe bet. Tom DeLay seems to hate uncertainties.
The fear, of course, would be disloyal party members. In 2000, Rep. Connie Morella (R-Md.), the last of the very liberal Republicans, said she’d vote with her constituents if the House got the election, which meant a vote for Gore. This year. South Dakota’s lone Representative, Stephanie Herseth (D), said she too would decide how her constituents decide, which would mean a vote for Bush. New House rules would presumably crack down on these kinds of possible shifts and establish some set rules for how states went about choosing.
But what about those aforementioned curveballs?
* The 2005 House, not this one, would get to decide. Most of this year’s races aren’t competitive, but one never knows what the next House is going to look like.
* The already narrowly-divided Senate would get to pick the VP. Each member, not each state, would get a vote. (The Constitution is quirky this way.) If there were a 50-50 tie, would Lincoln Chafee break ranks and abandon Cheney? Seems like a distinct possibility. If not, who breaks the tie? Apparently, Cheney, as the current VP and president of the Senate, would get the opportunity to vote to elect himself to a second term.
* Could the House pick Bush and the Senate choose Edwards? Sure.
But, and here’s a biggie, if there’s a 269-269 tie, one Republican elector — South Charleston, W.Va., Mayor Richie Robb — has already indicated that he may not back Bush in the electoral college.
“There is an implied duty to vote for your party’s candidate. But I don’t think it’s an explicit duty or responsibility,” said Robb, a moderate Republican who has a reputation of being a maverick in the state party.
Still, Robb calls it “highly unlikely” that he would cast a vote for Democrat John Kerry. He said he might cast his vote for Vice President Dick Cheney or another Republican instead as a protest against Bush, meaning the president would lose out on one electoral vote.
And at that point, one vote may make a huge difference. We can only hope it never gets to this.