Since the election is (supposedly) going to be so close, a number of interesting things can happen.
First, there is the possibilty of an electoral tie.
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial...27/1001887.asp
Quote:
|
[T]here are 33 scenarios under which the battleground states could line up so that Kerry and Bush are in an electoral tie.
|
If each candidate wins exactly 269 electoral votes, the president is elected by the House of Representatives. Bush has the edge here of course. However, Cheney's job is not a sure thing. The VP is determined by the Senate.
http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/electoraltie.htm
Quote:
|
First of all, this provides the chance for a President and Vice President to be selected from different parties. Second, if by chance, no Vice Presidential candidate manages to obtain a majority in the Senate, there exists no provision in the Constitution providing and explanation of the procedure to follow to continue the election process. There is also no provision that addresses the possibility of Senators or Representatives that are running for the two high offices being in the position to vote for themselves if there is a tie in the Electoral College or no majority in the House or Senate.
|
OK, so Bush/Edwards is a remote possibility, but not entirely out of the question. And I'm sure there would be "a little" public outrage if the House and Senate pick our next leaders if it contradicts the popular vote.
Then there is Colorado, voting on an amendment to divide their electoral votes proportionally. The measure goes into effect immediately if passed. Here is one particularly interesting possibility...
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,2952968.story
Quote:
|
The amendment passes and the election turns on Colorado. Give Kerry 269 electors, Bush 260, allow Bush to carry the state's popular vote, even while its confused citizens approve Amendment 36. Presto, we're back in Florida. Kerry picks up four electors, surpasses the magic electoral number of 270, and Republicans immediately go to court. They argue that when the Constitution says that electors in each state are to be appointed "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct," it means the "legislature" as an institution, not legislation enacted by popular referendum. Democrats reply that the people also act as a legislature when they approve a referendum, and that in 18th century usage, legislature meant the supreme law-giving power within a state, and not merely the people's elected representatives. You make the call.
|
Speaking of lawyers, it doesn't take a crazy scenario to start an attorneys' civil war Wednesday morning.
Although these are interesting possibilities, hopefully we will have real clarity if/when the smoke clears.