Scenario for Wakefulness: Electoral Deadlock in 3-Way Presidential race

May 24, 1992|By THEO LIPPMAN JR. | THEO LIPPMAN JR.,Theo Lippman, an editorialist for The Baltimore Sun, used to write satire until he found reality more absurd.

Next time you have trouble sleeping, stick to counting sheep. Don't try counting electoral votes. I did that recently, after reading two new national polls that suggested there might be a real three-way presidential contest this year. I haven't had a good night's sleep since.

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed George Bush ahead of Ross Perot and Bill Clinton by 35 percent to 30 percent to 27 percent. A CNN/Time magazine poll showed Mr. Perot leading President Bush and Governor Clinton 33 percent to 28 percent to 24 percent.

It occurred to me that if public opinion stays this close, the following outcome is at least a possibility:

President Bush and Ross Perot finish almost even in the popular vote, comfortably ahead of Bill Clinton. George Bush carries every state he won in 1988 (40, with 435 1992 electoral votes), except those he won with less than 55 percent of the popular vote (12, with 172 electoral votes), and except Texas (32 electoral votes), where native son Perot is running ahead of adopted son Bush in the polls, and except Oklahoma (8), where the Perot vote is also quite strong, and except Arkansas (6), which is Clinton territory.

Bill Clinton holds every state Michael Dukakis won in 1988 (10 and the District of Columbia, with 107 electoral votes in 1992), except the continental Pacific Northwest states where Mr. Perot is very popular (two, with 18 electoral votes), plus he wins at home (6 electoral votes).

Mr. Perot carries the rest.

This results in Ross Perot winning, carrying 16 states with 226 electoral votes; George Bush is second, carrying 25 states with 217 electoral votes, and Bill Clinton is a weak third, carrying nine states and the District of Columbia with 95 electoral votes.

And the winner and next president of the United States is -- the envelope, please; thank you, Spiro -- Bill Clinton!

Can this really be possible? Yes. It -- or some other similar scenario -- is definitely possible, and some might argue that it is even probable this year. Something like this has happened once before.

How? Why?

When you vote on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, you are not technically voting for a presidential candidate but a slate of electors representing your state whose sole duty is to select the president and vice president. Article II and the Twelfth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution explain how this works.

The electors vote for president and vice president. In Maryland -- and most states -- electors are required by law to vote for the president-vice president ticket that got the most popular votes. These laws are probably not enforceable. "Faithless electors" from time to time ignore their mandates in the Electoral College.

That "college" is really a process more than an institution. It has no campus or single meeting place. The Constitution specifies that each state gets a number of electors equal to its representation in the U.S. House and Senate combined. The U.S. Code requires the electors to meet in their respective states on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. They vote, then seal and forward "certificates" indicating the voting outcome to the president of the U.S. Senate.

At 1 p.m. on the sixth of January, the U.S. Code continues, House and Senate meet in the House chamber. Two tellers appointed by the House and two by the Senate count the electors' certificates. "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 a majority," the Twelfth Amendment states, "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 vote shall be taken by States, the representation from each State having one vote."

There are 538 electors in the nation. A majority of that is 270. Recall that in my midnight musings, Ross Perot has the most electoral votes -- but only 226.

So, it's up to the House. The senators file out of the House chamber and the voting begins. The amendment specifies that it takes a majority of states to pick a president. That means 26. In states with more than one member in the delegation, representatives would vote as individuals for a president.

In Maryland, for example, assuming the eight members elected next November are divided 5-3 Democratic, you could probably assume that they would vote 5-3 for Bill Clinton -- certainly if had carried the popular vote in the state, and maybe, probably, even if he hadn't. So Maryland casts one vote for Bill Clinton.

What?! Would representatives dare ignore the will of the people? They might. Especially if the people had no way of finding out how their representatives voted. And it is entirely possible that the House vote would be secret.

Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.