Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

2020 Election in 269-269 Tie

Recommended Posts

So I used the Morning Consult Trump Approval by State. I decided to give Trump every state that he has a positive net approval and the states where he has a negative net approval of less than negative 10, meaning he even got those that he's at a -9 in. The result was this 269-269 tie! https://www.270towin.com/maps/Db4w9

Question for you: What do you think Trump does if he somehow loses the 269-269 tie?

Note: In a tie, each state gets one vote, so the GOP could give Trump the election, since they have 26 states, post-midterm. Some states have laws, however, that require that the state votes for the popular vote winner, but these are probably all Blue States. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were a 269-269 tie, and the Republican dominated Congressional delegations chose the Dem, I am guessing a top possibility would be that he would go Andrew Jackson (one of Trump's icons) (or Teddy Roosevelt), and start another party to contest the next election. It was this sort of situation which led to the death of the original Republican party ('Democratic-Republican party'), and if Republicans were to do that in 2020, I am guessing it would lead similarly to the death of the contemporary Republican party.

If it were 269-269, could you imagine the pressure on the electors in the Electoral College both ways?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, vcczar said:

So I used the Morning Consult Trump Approval by State. I decided to give Trump every state that he has a positive net approval and the states where he has a negative net approval of less than negative 10, meaning he even got those that he's at a -9 in. The result was this 269-269 tie! https://www.270towin.com/maps/Db4w9

Question for you: What do you think Trump does if he somehow loses the 269-269 tie?

Note: In a tie, each state gets one vote, so the GOP could give Trump the election, since they have 26 states, post-midterm. Some states have laws, however, that require that the state votes for the popular vote winner, but these are probably all Blue States. 

An addendum to your note:  it's not the current Congress who would vote.  It's the NEXT Congress, and given that 100% of Representatives are up for re-election (assuming they're not resigning), it's impossible to say what the makeup of the House would be...especially in a 269-269 split.  

Speaking more generally...if we did end up in a situation where a Democrat house chose the Democrat to be President, while Pence was chosen by the Republican Senate as VP, that would be an interesting dynamic.  I imagine the VP would have next to no voice in such an administration, for the first time in at least 20 years.

As for what Trump would do:  Sue the shit out of everyone, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

If it were a 269-269 tie, and the Republican dominated Congressional delegations chose the Dem, I am guessing a top possibility would be that he would go Andrew Jackson (one of Trump's icons) (or Teddy Roosevelt), and start another party to contest the next election. It was this sort of situation which led to the death of the original Republican party ('Democratic-Republican party'), and if Republicans were to do that in 2020, I am guessing it would lead similarly to the death of the contemporary Republican party.

If it were 269-269, could you imagine the pressure on the electors in the Electoral College both ways?

In regards to your last question, I didn't think about that. I think Faithless Electors will try to swing the election one way or the other for sure. 

What do you think Trump does if he wins the election 270-268, or something like that, but then a few faithless electors swing the election to the Democrat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, vcczar said:

What do you think Trump does if he wins the election 270-268, or something like that, but then a few faithless electors swing the election to the Democrat?

I don't think something like that has ever happened before. The closest analog I can find is Richard Mentor Johnson as Van Buren's VP in 1836. Even there, though, it was merely thrown to the Senate where he prevailed.

There was a lot of chatter about this possibly happening in 2016, but then the opposite actually happened (unprecedented defections from H. Clinton).

Who knows? I don't know what options are available for a candidate in that scenario. My guess would be that he would run again in 2024 (he would be younger than Biden is now).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I don't think something like that has ever happened before. The closest analog I can find is Richard Mentor Johnson as Van Buren's VP in 1836. Even there, though, it was merely thrown to the Senate where he prevailed.

There was a lot of chatter about this possibly happening in 2016, but then the opposite actually happened (unprecedented defections from H. Clinton).

Who knows? I don't know what options are available for a candidate in that scenario. My guess would be that he would run again in 2024 (he would be younger than Biden is now).

Yeah, it would be unprecedented. I think Trump will try to stay in office through the courts or at least delay the inauguration. I don't see him going quietly in this situation. He might try to run again in 2024, but he might be happier going back to his old life and then just being the figurehead of a new party. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

It seems that the House and Senate could agree to reject an Electoral College vote. Not sure about the technicalities of this.

https://www.quora.com/Can-the-electors-in-the-Electoral-College-ignore-what-their-pledged-votes-to-vote-their-conscience

I think if a 269-269 tie occurs, then we will see electoral reform. The whole EC thing is a mess, especially in this instance. A popular vote is much more simple and much more democratic. There would be no need for electors or an election going to the House. Maybe we could get a two round voting system to, so that a candidate must get 50.1% of the vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you take the tied map and make Florida go Trump you might actually get the electoral count for the 2020 election. 298 Trump, 240 DEM. 🤷‍♂️ 

Trump is campaigning, and will likely continue to campaign and use Florida as a 'home state' what with the 'White House of the South' and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

If you take the tied map and make Florida go Trump you might actually get the electoral count for the 2020 election. 298 Trump, 240 DEM. 🤷‍♂️ 

Trump is campaigning, and will likely continue to campaign and use Florida as a 'home state' what with the 'White House of the South' and all.

Actually, you caught a mistake in my map! Florida should have been Red. So this 269-269 happened because of an accident on my part. I think I clicked Florida one too many times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems the states the Trump campaign is currently focusing on are what you would expect - the last 3 rallies have been Florida, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Actually, you caught a mistake in my map! Florida should have been Red. So this 269-269 happened because of an accident on my part. I think I clicked Florida one too many times. 

Ahh. Okay, well keeping Florida with Trump and then If you flip Virginia to Democrat, which Trump lost in 2016, and Georgia to Democrat, which some are saying is a swing state or rather one in the making, then you'd have a 269-269 tie. Though obviously it's no longer based off of Trump's approval.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I think if a 269-269 tie occurs, then we will see electoral reform.

In terms of abolishing the EC, I think that would require an Amendment - that's tough. Recently here in Canada, the Liberals campaigned on removing the first-past-the-post system. Once they won power with the first-past-the-post system (with about 40% of the vote), they said it wasn't the will of the people to have electoral reform and so they wouldn't pursue it.

It's a bit of a conundrum - the party that is in power won by the existing rules, so they tend to have a bias against changing those rules unless they think it will provide a further definitive bonus to themselves, but if it does, the other major parties will oppose changing the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You’ll get a “grand bargain”. I could see Republicans agree to let the Dem win for McConnel gettin significant influence on any SCOTUS nominees, or ending Obamacare Etc. much like 1876

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

British Columbia recently had a referendum on changing from first-past-the-post to proportional representation. The major party in power agreed to this referendum in return for support from a minor party (minority government situation). The major party in power then officially campaigned for PR, but it's not clear how hard it campaigned - most of the energy for PR seemed to be coming from supporters of the minor party. The other major party (not in power) campaigned vociferously against PR. FPP won the referendum 60-40. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a more realistic route to electoral reform is something on the state-by-state level. For example, having a state pledge its electors to whoever wins the popular vote nationally is one option (already signed onto by various states). Another is implementing ranked choice (instant-runoff) for the state's electors (something that might happen in Maine - this is one of Yang's policies). Another is some kind of proportional allocation of electors on a state-by-state basis (more realistic with larger numbers of electors, so bigger states).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I think a more realistic route to electoral reform is something on the state-by-state level. For example, having a state pledge its electors to whoever wins the popular vote nationally is one option (already signed onto by various states). Another is implementing ranked choice (instant-runoff) for the state's electors (something that might happen in Maine - this is one of Yang's policies). Another is some kind of proportional allocation of electors on a state-by-state basis (more realistic with larger numbers of electors, so bigger states).

good afternoon, please, I'm trying to talk to you

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...