« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Election 2012: The Perfect Tie Map

By: savejersey (Diary)  |  May 1st, 2012 at 04:24 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

By Brian McGovern | Cross-posted at SaveJersey.com

Everyone knows that to become President of the United States a candidate needs to collect 270 electoral votes, this is the lowest majority you can have to take the White House. So what happens if no one gets there. Or worse, what happens if both candidates get exactly 269 electoral votes? And what is the likelihood of that even happening?

Well, taking a look at the map, its not as unlikely as you might think. Check out this map I put together:

This map is perfectly possible and would be an absolute nightmare for the process. So I am sure you are now wondering, what happens in this case? Look no further than the Constitution.

The 12th Amendment in part reads:

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, 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 . . .

So basically what it means is that when no one has 270, the election goes to the House of Representatives. Each state’s delegation will vote amongst themselves and their state gets one vote. The majority of the states will then elect the President. Clearly since 33 states currently enjoy a Republican majority delegation, Mitt Romney would be the winner, right? Not so fast.

The vote would take place on January 6, 2013, when the House and Senate normally meet to count the electoral votes every four years. The House that would be voting on the President will be the newly elected House in 2013. How do we know this if its never happened before? Well, for starters, the 2012 electoral college is based on the newly redistricted maps of the 50 states, so some of the members of Congress (see either Steve Rothman or Bill Pascrell) will not even be in the House anymore when this vote takes place.

This political doomsday scenario shows the importance of not only electing Romney, but also maintaining a strong Republican majority in the House. But wait, theres more.

The Vice President will not just glide in on Romney’s coat tails. The Senate will select the Vice President in the same way that the House selects the President. This means that under the 269 – 269 map, unless the GOP takes over the Senate, we would have President Romney and Vice President Biden until 2016. What a weird White House that would be.

_____

Brian McGovern is a New Jersey law student, conservative commentator, and managing editor of New Jersey’s #1 conservative blog, Save Jersey. You can learn more about Brian and the Christie Revolution by visiting today!

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Ender

    Despite some current polls it is very unlikely that Obama will carry Arizona. Those AZ polls have a very high level of undecideds which will ultimately vote republican. On the other hand Colorado is trending bluer and might be tough for Romney to capture in a 50%-50% popular vote scenario.

    PA would be tougher for Romney to capture than Ohio and Virginia. Same goes for Missouri and WV for Obama – meaning those are GOP leaning.

    The least likely is fortunately AZ. :)

  • JSobieski

    Put another way, fruit is picked in order of low hanging fruit to higher.

    There is no way an R would win Pennsylvania without winning Missouri—Missouri is lower hanging fruit.

    Similarly the odds of the D winning Arizona and the R winning Pennsylvania is ZERO.

    You can basically put all of the states along a D-R continuum. The election day vote consists of a line that is perpendicular to that continuum with everything to the right of the line going R and everything to the left of the line going D.

    Such an approach is far more accurate then current state polling, and history confirms this.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      The switches from 2000 to 2004 would seem to refute your claim.

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        It’s sheer fantasy by people want ing to see Constitutional excitement.

      • JSobieski

        nt

      • JSobieski

        So if a D is going to win any state in the non-coastal west, it will be NM.

        Conversely, NH is the most red state in New England, so if an R is going to win any state in NE, it will be NH.

        I see the results of 2004 and 2008 validating my theory.

        So if a state like Arizona goes blue, NM will almost certainly go blue.

        Similarly, if a state like Pennsylvania were to go red, NH would almost certainly go red.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          In 2000, Bush won NH and Gore won NM.

          In 2004, Bush won NM and Kerry won NH.

          By a pure Swingometer analysis, that’s impossible.

          Swingometer is *great* when you can’t get individual district/state polling, but I’d never rely too heavily on it for a Presidential race.

          • JSobieski

            Both NM and NH are local mins/maxs (depending on how you look at it).

            No non-coastal western state will go blue if NM doesn’t go blue.

            No NE state will go red if NH doesn’t go red.

            The continuum theory works best when it is used in conjunction with neighboring states since it is unlikely that the economy of neighbor will be dramatically different.

            For example, there is no way that Michigan will go red if Ohio goes blue.

            Similarly, there is no way that Pennsylvania will go red if Ohio goes blue.

            If you apply my theory to 50/50 coin-flip states and then compare it to another 50/50 coin-flit state on the other side of country, I agree that my approach is less useful in that context. However, if you tighten one or both variables (1) geography or (2) baseline inclination, the theory works quite well.

            Directionally contradictory movement in two coin-flip states from different regions of the country hardly invalidates my approach.

            Organize the country into regions. Order the states of a region into a left-right continuum. Pick the ground zero impact point, and the theory works quite well.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            You just admitted all politics are local. Now you just need to admit that every state can go its own way on its own issues. :)

          • JSobieski

            My approach does accurately describe the presidential electoral map pretty well.

            The issues of Michigan and the issue of Ohio are generally speaking not that different. Some correlations are validated by history.

            Can Texas vote for D in the post-Reagan alignment map? In theory yes. But such an event would likely indicate a nationwide landslide.

            It is possible for different parts of the country to have different economic conditions, and that does impact voter behavior. However, due to the MSM and the internet, voters are exposed to a national campaign.

            The approach of all states are individual blank slates with voter behavior having no relationship to recent past elections or that of neighboring states is more wrong than right.

          • JSobieski

            I am surprised that you are so dismissive of ways to organize aggregated data pertaining to voter behavior over a period of time.

          • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

            Using the same map, but

            Obama wins Pennsylvania (20) and Virginia(13) + 33

            Romney wins Arizona (11), Missouri (10), Nevada (6), Iowa (6) =33

            Same result: 269 – 269 tie

            There are multiple iterations, all less plausible but not impossible. For example:

            Obama wins Florida (29), Virginia (13) and Colorado (9) = 51

            Romney wins Arizona (11), Missouri (10), New Hampshire (4), Michigan (16) and Wisconsin (10) = 51

          • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

            Much better, but VA is not a likely Obama state in a close election. 2010 disproved the drift of VA to the blue side.

            More likely closest election scenario:
            Give AZ, WV and MO to Romney and PA to Obama, vs map in article and Romney wins by 6 electoral votes.

            Take out OH and give Romney IA, NH, and he loses by 2 electoral votes.

            Conclusion: CO, FL and OH will be pivotal. Romney can win without all three but they are implausible scenarios.
            VA, NC, AZ and WV are must-win.

            NH, NV, IA, PA and WI are within reach battelgrounds to go on offense with.

          • ww2nd95

            going for Romney and I do think VA will go for Obama this time around. AZ will go Romney’s way and I think he’ll also possibly win WI, I do think Scott Walkers “re-election” will play a roll there though, and I can see Romney stealing NH.

            It’s going to be tight no matter what. I don’t see this being a blowout win either way.

          • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

            Freedoms Truth: Using only the states you have mentioned

            Agreed that Romney will win AZ, MO, and WV = +26

            Obama wins PA and OH = +38

            Romney also wins NV and IA = + 12

            Tie (and much more likely)

            Or

            Obama wins PA, CO, and VA = +42

            Romney wins all of above (+38) and NH (+4) = +42
            or
            Romney wins AZ, MO, WV (+26), WI (+10) and NV (+6) = +42

            Tie

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Swingometer basically uses the model you’re saying is the ONLY WAY. It’s great in aggregate but lousy at predicting any one particular race.

            So I know for a fact that what you’re saying just isn’t so, from practical experience.

          • JSobieski

            and is far more probable than the map displayed in the diary.

            I don’t think swingometer is equivalent to my approach. My approach doesn’t predict swings, what it does is categorize states in their relative sensitivity/resistance to nation wide swings.

            For example, Mass is likely to resist a national R trend just as Utah would likely to resist a national D trend.

            My approach is predictive only in the sense that it is relatively predictive based on a states recent past behavior and the concurrent behavior of other states.

    • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

      PA but not MO, WV and AZ? Impossible.

      Romney wont win PA if he doesnt win WV, this in a year where the most anti-coal President is on the ballot and WV is still hurting economically.

      • ww2nd95

        I agree. I would swap WV with VA, because I do not see Obama winning WV with how coal is an enemy of his. I do think Obama will win VA, but I do not see him winning AZ. I don’t care how many Hispanics are moving in, I just do not see that state going blue this year.

  • Return to Revolution

    I live in PA and I’m probably biased but I don’t see it. PA is without question a swing state on paper – given how we regularly elect R legislature, governors and senators… but the exception seems to be with presidents. I mean, we voted for John Kerry for crying out glavin.

    I think another good tie scenario would be keep PA blue, turn WV, NH and AZ red. I don’t think that scenario will happen either but it is fun to play with the map.

  • Pingback: click here

  • davenj1

    Really? AZ, MO and WV for Obama? Even NH is debatable.