Another close election may be coming up in November. It is not difficult to create a realistic scenario where the electoral map on election night is 269-269. What then?
As our site URL says, it takes “270 to Win”. If neither candidate gets a majority of the Electoral Votes, the election for President is decided in the House of Representatives, with each state delegation having one vote. Senators would elect the Vice-President.
It is important to note that an apparent tie on election night does not mean that there is actually a tie. The actual Electors meet on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (December 15, 2008) to cast their votes. Only about half the states have laws requiring their Electors to vote for the popular vote winner. It is possible that an Elector could cast his or her vote for another person. As long as that vote wasn’t for the other major candidate in the race, this wouldn’t be an issue — neither candidate would have 270. However, imagine a scenario where a single Elector in a single state switched their vote to the other party — the vote would be 270 -268. While very unlikely, it has happened before (most recently in 1968, although the election that year wasn’t close). If you thought the 2000 election was controversial, this outcome just might bring the Electoral College system to its knees.
More than likely, the election would remain undecided after the Electors voted. The new Congress meets in joint session on January 6, 2009 to count the electoral votes (this count happens whether the election is close or not). If neither candidate has reached 270 Electoral Votes, then the House and Senate take over and elect the President and Vice-President, respectively.
UPDATE 6/22: Based on some feedback, we may not have made this point clearly enough: It is the new Congress, that is inaugurated the first week of January, 2009, that will have the responsibility of breaking any ties.
23 responses so far ↓
1 Emily // Jun 16, 2008 at 1:02 pm
States may have laws against “faithless electors”, but those laws do not invalidate the Electoral College results.
In theory a state could make it a capital crime for an elector to vote for a different candidate - punishable by death. However, if the elector votes his own way anyway, the result STILL COUNTS!
2 Trent // Jun 19, 2008 at 1:53 pm
The current House would decide, right? Not the newly elected one? I guess it doesn’t matter too much, though, since democrats are in control now and look to be gaining even more seats in November. Barring a faithless elector, it looks like Mccain needs 270, but Obama only needs 269.
270TOWIN ADMIN: It is our understanding that the new House would decide, as the official count of electoral votes in the House (whether there is a tie or not) is 1/6/09, after the inauguration of the new House. Any tiebreaking activity would have to occur subsequent to that date.
3 Chan // Jun 20, 2008 at 1:57 pm
The only reasonable permutation that shows a split is Obama getting FL and McCain Ohio and NH.
That would have McCain with 30 states, and a victory.
270 ADMIN COMMENT: It isn’t the number of states won in the election that drives this. Each state gets one vote, awarded to the candidate picked by that state’s House representatives. So, you need to look at the number of state delegations that Democrats control vs. those controlled by Republicans. I don’t have those breakdowns, but you shouldn’t have too much trouble finding blog posts that talk about this.
4 BorderPeak // Jun 22, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Chan, I believe there are at least two reasonable ways the election could end in a college tie, both seem more likely in such close climate to me than yours. Take the 2004 result, (270towin.com is very helpful for this), then flip Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado from R to D and New Hampshire from D to R. Or for a closely related but less likely scenario don’t flip NH or Colorado but do flip Nevada. Note in both outcomes Ohio, Florida, and Virginia stay red while Michigan and Wisconsin stay blue. There is a lot of buzz about Ohio being more likely to vote Obama then Michigan and Wisconsin but history would say that is a profound change to the partisan ladder, of course so is Colorado going blue. But surely in an election close enough to result in a tie, the Republicans would have no trouble fixing Florida again. I question if a tie scenario that has Florida in the D column is reasonable.
On to the House vote. In this congress there are 27 D delegation, 21 R, and 2 ties, Arizona and Kansas. I believe you actually have to get a majority of the house delegations not just a plurality so the Dems could only hope to count on 27 in this scenario and they would have to hold all but one of them. The vote, if it were to happen would be by the new Congress so the Dems might hope for 28 or 29 delegations but if a tie election were to happen the house races would be closer than they look now and so maybe no changes in state majorities. Then it gets to be a really scary nightmare. There would be 8 states with dem majority delegations where the voters chose McCain, Mississippi, Tennessee, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Indiana. I ordered them in my best guess from heavy Republican majorities to narrower. There are only 3 states in the opposite situation. Republican delegations would be explaining there vote to Obama majorities in Delaware, New Mexico, and Michigan. On the theory that the wicked take no rest, you can count on the Republican Party and the Fox pundits to yammer day and night for the “high principal” that each delegation vote the way of their people, never mind that Obama would have probably won the popular vote. Lets hope so, that argument, it a lot better than “we got screwed in 2000, so there”, (actually we got Ralphed, see 2000 Florida and New Hampshire). McCain would have won 29 states. The democratic delegation of Mississippi would have to be especially brave and probably politically suicidal, (those people have back roads and guns), to vote for Obama. It would be touchy for the rest, perhaps especially for the one man delegations of North Dakota and South Dakota. In my view it is bleak. The Democrats let themselves be bullied by the Republicans into war, they are being bullied now into throwing out the bill of rights, and these delegations might very well be bullied into voting for McCain. The Democratic Senate would then have to elect Obama as Vice President and we would then have to hope for the best. As the Montana ranch wife said; “progress is made one funeral at a time”.
5 Brandon // Jun 22, 2008 at 8:34 pm
There are a few scenarios that lead to a 269-269 tie (the NH red, CO, NM, IA blue is definitely the most likely given the past history and has been reported on major news networks recently, but with MI trending red and VA, NV trending blue I was able to create a few more ties). My question is, does the current Congress get to pick the President and Vice-President or does the new Congress elected in 2008 get to make that pick when they convene in 2009? That could make a big difference given the gains expected by Democrats in 2008 (though by my hasty calculations with 2 split delegations in AZ and KS, Democrats have a 25-23 advantage currently anyway) though if the Senate remained tight one could easily imagine how a conservative Democrat like Lieberman (CT) could tip the scales for a Republican VP. Anyone know the answers on these?
270TOWIN: New Congress makes the picks.
6 BorderPeak // Jun 22, 2008 at 11:21 pm
The new House and Senate convene and receive the report from the College, thus they are the ones that break the tie, the house for the presidency, the senate the vp. The current congress is 27 democrats, 21 republican and the 2 ties. There could be more democratic delegations in the new congress but not very many, that just would not be consistent with the presidential election ending up a tie would it? imho, that Obama gets elected by the house is not at all a sure thing as I talk about in my earlier post. Sorry I have two posts in a row. I was hoping the moderator could delete the first and replace it with the second. The first didn’t get the spelling and grammar check that it so genuinely needed.
7 Brandon // Jun 23, 2008 at 4:43 am
WA, OR, CA, CO, ND, SD, MN, WI, IA, IL, IN, AR, MS, TN, NC, WV, MD, CT, RI, NJ, PA, NY, VT, NH, MA, ME, HI are all blue currently. MT, ID, WY, UT, NV, NM, NE, OK, TX, LA, MO, MI, OH, KY, AL, GA, FL, SC, VA, DE, AK are all red currently. AZ and KS are currently tied. Most likely that some House seats will fall to Dems as opposed to GOP (for example, NM could shift if the 1st district becomes a Democratic seat as current polls suggest based on the departure of Heather Wilson, or AZ could shift if the up-for-grabs 1st district goes Democrat, etc.). So even if there is a tie, it is likely Obama will be president and that since the Senate will have more Democrats next term, the VP will also be Democratic.
8 BorderPeak // Jun 23, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Brandon, do you have any worry that some democrat delegations won’t vote for Obama? MS, TN, ND, SD?
9 Brandon // Jun 23, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Well there was some thinking that some of the “conservative” delegations might be reluctant if it came down to them (those you mentioned along with AR, NC, IN and AZ and KS if they switch) mostly because he represents a more liberal side of the party than they do and partially for fear that the GOP would taint them as Obama approvers in TV ads if his term goes poorly. From what I’ve heard though, this is probably unlikely as they would stand to lose very little supporting him (particularly if Obama wins more popular vote) and could lose party support in a year where both houses will be Democrat (meaning they could lose plum positions on committees, etc.).
10 Derek // Jul 2, 2008 at 11:10 am
It is alarmingly easy to come up with multiple 269-269 scenarios, all of them quite plausible. Unless one of the candidates is caught with a dead woman or a live boy in their hotel room, as the old saying goes… I think it’s going to be very tight and exciting on Election night and then for months thereafter.
11 Dale // Jul 2, 2008 at 4:17 pm
The 12th Amendment states that the House will choose among the top THREE electoral vote getters for President. If an elector doesn’t vote for his state’s winner, but a third person. That person would be in the top three. Although it wouldn’t mean much, it would create a lot of discussions.
270toWin: Interestingly, in that scenario (assuming this 3rd party got one electoral vote), there would no longer be an overall tie. However, neither major candidate would have the majority (270) so the practical effect is the same as if there was a tie (except this 3rd person would be considered).
12 Michael // Jul 13, 2008 at 1:41 pm
One interesting thing about a tie scenario is that it leaves the citizens of Washington D.C. completely disenfranchised, as they have no say in the final election.
13 Joe // Jul 22, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Does anybody have any idea what happens with the House delegations that are tied?
I would imagine the delegations would probably vote in line with their state’s popular vote but they do represent districts that could easily be for their party’s candidate.
14 Chris // Jul 24, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Is it a consensus that Obama would get voted in if it was tied at 269? Assuming the Democrats control the House, he would, yes? Anyway, here is a scenario that could very well happen that ties them at 269 (yes, I know D.C. isn’t a state, but I’m calling it one):
Obama:
California (55)
Colorado (9)
Connecticut (7)
Delaware (3)
Hawaii
Illinois (21)
Iowa (7)
Maine (4)
Maryland (10)
Massachusetts (12)
Michigan (17)
Minnesota (10)
New Jersey (15)
New Mexico (5)
New York (31)
Oregon (7)
Pennsylvania (21)
Rhode Island (4)
Vermont (3)
Washington (11)
Washington, D.C. (3)
Wisconsin (10)
22 States - 269
McCain:
Alabama (9)
Alaska(3)
Arizona (10)
Arkansas (6)
Florida (27)
Georgia (15)
Idaho (4)
Indiana (11)
Kansas (6)
Kentucky (8)
Louisiana (9)
Mississippi (6)
Missouri (11)
Montana (3)
Nebraska (5)
Nevada (5)
New Hampshire (4)
North Carolina (15)
North Dakota (3)
Ohio (20)
Oklahoma (7)
South Carolina (8)
South Dakota (3)
Tennessee (11)
Texas (34)
Utah (5)
Virginia (13)
West Virginia (5)
Wyoming (3)
29 States - 269
15 matthew // Jul 26, 2008 at 11:16 am
Hey guys! I just wanted you to know what another possible connection of a 269-269 tie is. What if Ohio goes democratic and Missouri goes republican. Nevada may go democratic and New Mexico will probably go republican. You know that Missouri had got it right since 1960 and Ohio since 1964. Indiana will probably just go democratic for the first time since 1964.All the west and south {Except for California, Oregon, Washington and Nevada} will go red. New England, the mid-Atlantic, as far south as Kentucky and as west as Illinois will go blue[of the northeastern states]only new Hampshire and Delaware are going red of these states. Although only 21 states are going blue, they all have huge numbers. Hawaii will go democratic too. The house of representatives has to have an election to break the tie. It has to be a two thirds majority in the house.
16 Mike Doran // Jul 28, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Using your map, with polls on some other sites as backup, I’ve come up with no less than five (5) combinations of states that will yield a 269-269 tie in the EC. To me , this possibility, however remote, is a powerful argument for eliminating the EC - which can’t happen without a Constitutional amendment,and therefore won’t. The great American Booby-trap is once again armed and ready to spring, as in 2000.
17 Darren // Jul 29, 2008 at 11:53 am
What happens if there is a tie in the Electoral College and also with the new House of Representatives (25 to 25) for President or the Senate for VP?
270TOWIN: We’re not Constitutional experts, but it looks like there would need to be additional voting until one candidate won the majority of states This Wikipedia article discusses what would happen in case a compromise were not reached before the Inauguration:
“In order to prevent deadlocks from keeping the nation leaderless, the Twelfth Amendment provided that if the House could not choose a President before March 4 (at that time the first day of a Presidential term), the individual elected Vice President would act as President, “as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.” The Twelfth Amendment did not state for how long the Vice President would act as President, or if the House could still choose a President after March 4. Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment replaced that provision of the Twelfth Amendment by changing the date for the commencement of Presidential terms to January 20 and permitting the Congress to direct, through legislation, “who shall then act as President” if there’s no President-elect or Vice President-elect. It also clarified that if there’s no President-elect on January 20, whoever acts as President does so until a person is “qualified” to occupy the Presidency.”
18 Darren // Jul 29, 2008 at 12:00 pm
BorderPeak suggested a scenario where Obama may be selected VP by the Senate if McCain is chosen by the House of Representatives. Wouldn’t the Senate be selecting from VP nominees or can they vote for anyone to be VP?
270TOWIN: Again, we’re not Constitutional experts, but in a non-majority situation, it looks like the Senate would be choosing from the two persons who received the greatest amount of electoral votes for Vice-President. So, it does not seem possible that Obama could be the Vice-President in any scenario, except for the all-but-impossible one where all the Democratic electors turn faithless and decide to vote for someone other than Obama for President and pick Obama as their Vice-Presidential candidate. Note that an elector cannot vote for the same person as President and VP.
19 Chris D. // Jul 29, 2008 at 9:25 pm
As colorful as all of these negative inferences to the Republican Party are, they do not make for any kind of substance (see comments from BorderPeak). Yes, it is possible there will be a 269-269 tie, but not very probable. In the unlikely event it does happen, the new Congress will count the votes and the winning candidate will get the majority of state delegations (voting as ONE state). 26-24 (for example). Since we have already established that two states have tied delegations, it’s important to note that those states will no be able to participate in the selection of a winner (unless some members of those delegations vote for the opposing party).
If we could all just drop the insinuations and ad hominem attacks, we might actually be able to have a rational, fair discussion on the merits of the candidates and this election.
20 Daniel // Aug 5, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Dale: In the scenario you mention you state that the third person to get an electoral vote wouldn’t mean much. Although it’s a bit far-fetched, it’s not inconceivable that this person could wind up president.
Consider this: a 269-269 tie (numerous scenarios have been suggested that lead to this), and just enough congressional delegations flip to create a 25-25 tie in the house (or even worse, a something like a 23-23 tie with some deadlocked delegations).
Consequently, an elector sees the potential for a major constitutional crisis, and casts a faithless vote for a moderate from either party (for example, Joe Lieberman) for the sole purpose of making a compromise candidate eligible. Such a candidate would probably fare poorly in the first round of voting in the House, but the longer voting went on the more attractive such a candidate might appear.
21 Ryan // Aug 8, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Mike D., actually the electoral college can be functionally eliminated without a Constitutional Amendment. Several states, MD, NJ, IL, and HI, so far, have passed laws saying that their EC votes will go to the winner of the national popular vote, provided that enough states pass similar laws to deliver the election to the popular vote winner. It’s not inconceivable, as there are probably around 300 EC votes in states that are never going to be play, and thus tend to be ignored during the election.
22 Steve // Aug 12, 2008 at 11:28 am
I am actually in favor of keeping the Electorial College. This nation was founded on checks and balances, which includes the Senate, which each state has equal representation.
With the Electorial College, smaller states get a small, but potentially critical weight to their votes. Would any Presidential candidate really try to spend time understanding the issues in New Hampshire or Nevada without the Electorial College?
I would like to see “faithless electors” votes be ignored, but I would still want electors. If a “George Wallace” type candidate were to actually win enough electors to prevent the other candidates from winning, then the third party candidate could instruct his/her electors to vote for one of the other canidates that will give him/her the best deal.
23 Jesse // Aug 13, 2008 at 2:10 pm
First, I’m not a PUMA, but I did support Hillary in the primaries, I am voting Obama, so before the flames start I just wanted to state that. But percieve this (may be irrelevant in a week when VP is picked) but say that Obama chooses Hillary for VP. If there is a 269 tie, and a tie in the house, but Hillary wins VP in the Senate, and if the president is not confirmed by Jan 20, 2009, Hillary as VP would be acting president until the situation is settled. Wouldn’t that be the strangest outcome to this crazy primary/election season of all time??
270toWin: For those interested in the framework for a messy scenario like this, see Section 3 of the 20th Amendment to the Constitution.
Leave a Comment