Three ways Election Day could get ugly

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

There isn't any polling to back it up, but trust us on this one: After roughly two years of campaigning, a deluge of campaign ads, and enough media coverage of President Obama and Mitt Romney to make a four-year-old cry, most Americans would really like the presidential election to come to an end on November 6.

But while it's likely that we'll know who has won the White House on Election Day - or, at least, by the early hours of the following day - it's far from certain. Below, we discuss three Election Day possibilities that could either keep the battle going beyond next Tuesday or prompt a national conversation about what some call a broken system.

An Electoral Vote Split

There are 538 electoral votes available to the candidates in the Electoral College. Why 538? It has to do with the fact that states are allotted electoral votes based on how many members they send to Congress. Every state starts with two electoral votes for their two senators, and then gets an electoral vote for each member it sends to the House. Add up the 100 senators and 435 representatives, and you get 535 electoral votes. Add in the three votes allocated to the District of Columbia, which does not have voting representation in Congress, and you're at 538.

One problem with that number, from an electoral perspective, is that it's even - which means that it's possible that a presidential election could yield an electoral vote tie. There are a number of ways the candidates could end up with 269 electoral votes each. (You can play with the iterations here, and see some other possibilities here.) The most likely scenario involves Mr. Obama winning the battleground states of Ohio, Wisconsin and New Hampshire as well as the states he is expected to win, while Romney takes the remaining battlegrounds (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina and Virginia) and the states he is expected to win.  

So what happens if there's a tie? Under the Twelfth Amendment, the newly-elected House of Representatives decides the president, with each state's delegation getting to cast one vote. Republicans are now the majority in 33 delegations, the Washington Post reports, while Democrats are the majority in 16. Republicans are widely expected to maintain control of the House, which means they are also likely to maintain their edge in terms of how many state delegations they control. And that suggests that a tie is likely to result in Romney being declared president. (Though if Mr. Obama wins the popular vote while splitting the Electoral College, members of the House will face pressure to follow the will of the people.)

The vice president, meanwhile, would be decided by the Senate - which Democrats are expected to maintain narrowly after Election Day. That raises the possibility of Romney taking the presidency but seeing the vice presidential slot go not to his running mate, Paul Ryan, but instead to the man who currently holds that office: Joe Biden.

A split between the electoral and popular vote

While national polls show the presidential race roughly even, state polls show Mr. Obama with a small edge in a number of battlegrounds. That raises the possibility of the following scenario: Mr. Obama takes more than 270 electoral votes thanks to narrow victories in a majority of the battleground states while Romney takes more votes overall, thanks in part to overwhelming victories in the deeply red states in the South. That would result in Mr. Obama winning reelection despite coming in second place in the national vote. When you consider that Mr. Obama is expected to win the big blue states by smaller margins than he did in 2008, such a scenario seems even less farfetched. (A situation in which Romney wins the Electoral College while losing the popular vote is also possible, though it's far less likely.)

Such an outcome would prompt some Republican outcry, but it probably won't be too loud: In 2000, after all, George W. Bush won the presidency despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore. What it would also potentially do is kick start a national conversation about whether it's time to effectively ditch the Electoral College. Due in part to frustration that only a handful of states get much attention from presidential candidates, there has been a push to make sure whoever wins the most votes wins the presidency; under a proposal known as the National Popular Vote bill, the states would agree to allocate their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. Though nine states (including the electoral behemoth that is California) have agreed to the plan, not enough have done so for it to take effect. If the presidency once again goes to the person who came in second place, however - for the second time in the past four elections - the movement could pick up steam.  

An effective tie in a key state

Picture this: With the vote settled in 49 states and the District of Columbia, neither candidate has the 270 electoral votes they need to take the presidency. In the remaining state - we're going to use Ohio in this example, since it's generally considered to be the most crucial battleground in the race - the vote margin is razor-thin. And suddenly the nation is plunged into a sequel to the battle that took place in Florida after the 2000 election, when lawyers poured into the state to battle for every vote and the election ultimately had to be decided by the Supreme Court.

• no previous page
• next

1/2

[myth1958]

Montopoli digests a huge chunk of election theory, tossing about taut scenarios fit for a Hollywood drama in a year like other Novembers I've seen. Except for blowout elections, many presidential contests have been close enough for us to wonder who will win: anxious for a resolution of the contests. I was sad when Carter lost to Reagan, and Gore to Bush II. This year we have another incumbent to evaluate; his military accomplishments; how he's treated women's issues; his international stature. It won't be that hard to vote for a man who's accomplished as much as Obama in just one term, nor hard to imagine him doing much more with an extra four. Besides, we'll be doing Romney a favor by sending him home. He has a brand new car elevator to toy with, and simply MUST whip that horse into better shape. They'll both be in what some philosophies refer to as their 'right livelihood.' Amen.

[halvie54]

God bless you and keep you Myth1958. I'd wager you've calmed a lot of jangled nerves with your concise observations. If only we could see you sitting in on a panel discussion across from the likes of Karl Rove! Hopefully, you're visiting a wide variety of sites, Word Warrior. Your message packs an urgently needed punch.

[Ex-nuke]

What we need is cumpulsory voting with "None of the Above" as a choice. If "None of the Above" wins, the election has to be done over with none of the same names allowed and the office stays vacant until there is a winner.

[bbglow]

5 ECONOMIC REASONS TO RE-ELECT THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION:
(with source references to back them up)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

A COMPARISON... BETWEEN...

...The Last Republican we had in the White House
(can anyone state with conviction that the yet to be defined RNC policies will differ from the previous administration?)

VS.

Current Administration ... leading the country forward, from the mess that was handed to it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

REASON # 1 - EMPLOYMENT SITUATION IMPROVEMENT

(a comparison between the Last Republican in
the White House ... vs. ... Current Administration)

...last 12 months of the last Republican President in the White House:

Feb '08 = -240,000 jobs lost
Mar '08 = -49,000 jobs lost
Apr '08 = +22,000 jobs gained
May '08 = -201,000 jobs lost
Jun '08 = -191,000 jobs lost
Jul '08 = -208,000 jobs lost
Aug '08 = -334,000 jobs lost
Sep '08 = -137,000 jobs lost
Oct '08 = -267,000 jobs lost
Nov '08 = -714,000 jobs lost
Dec '08 = -750,000 jobs lost
Jan '09 = -1,141,000 jobs lost

TOTAL = 4,210,000 jobs lost ... "4.2 MILLION" jobs lost in a 1 year time frame.

The Current Administration turnaround after spending it's first year fixing the mess that the Former Republican Administration left behind:
2010 = + 1,252,000 jobs GAINED
2011 = + 1,570,000 jobs GAINED
2012 (just for the months of January to October) = + 2,594,000 jobs GAINED

TOTAL JOB GAINS SINCE THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION TURNED AROUND PREVIOUS REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION MESS ... = + 5,416,000. (recovered 4.2 million + 1.2 million new jobs ... what if a 4.2 million hole did not exist to begin with?)

SOURCE:
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls

------------------------------------------------------------------------

REASON # 2 -- U.S. MANUFACTURING JOBS RETURNING

(a comparison between the Last Republican in
the White House ... vs. ... Current Administration)

"MADE IN AMERICA" U.S. manufacturing jobs (exports).

...last Republican President we had in the White House, had net losses of "MADE IN AMERICA" U.S. manufacturing jobs EVERY SINGLE YEAR, totaling to 4.6 million U.S. manufacturing jobs going overseas in 8 years.

...Under the Current Administration, for the first time since Bill Clinton was President, the U.S.A. has had annual NET GROWTH of U.S. manufacturing jobs equal to the following:
2010 = +109,000
2011 = +233,000
2012 (Jan-to-Oct) = +158,000 (so far in 2012)

SOURCE:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES3000000001?data_tool=XGtable

------------------------------------------------------------------------

REASON # 3 -- HOME VALUES RECOVERING

(a comparison between the Last Republican in
the White House ... vs. ... Current Administration)

... Under the last Republican we had in the White House, home values "collapsed" and millions of Americans went "underwater" with their mortgages.

... Since the Current Administration took office, the drop in home prices has stopped, and home values are back on the rise again...

Check out the CASE-SHILLER HOME PRICE INDEX below to actually see the difference...

SOURCE:
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-case-shiller-house-prices-go-positive-2012-8

------------------------------------------------------------------------

REASON # 4 -- STOCK MARKET RECOVERING

... Under the last Republican we had in the White House, the stock market "crashed" (putting the nation in a "Great Recession").
---> The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) Index had dropped down to "8,000" (Jan 2009) from the "13,000" it was at just 9 months earlier.

... Under Current Administration, today, the DJIA Index is at "13,000"... approximately where it was at before the latest market "crash" we had under yet "another" Republican.

SOURCE:
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^DJI+Interactive#symbol=^DJI;range=5y

------------------------------------------------------------------------

REASON # 5 -- CAUSE FOR DEFICIT
(a distribution between the Last Republican in
the White House ... vs. ... Current Administration)

The Pew Center reported in April 2011 the cause of a $12.7 trillion "shift" in the debt situation "from a 2001 CBO forecast of a cumulative $2.3 trillion surplus by 2011" to the estimated $10.4 trillion public debt we actually faced in 2011. The major drivers were:

Revenue "declines due to the recession", separate from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 28%
Defense spending increases: 15%
Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 13%
Increases in net interest: 11%
Other non-defense spending: 10%
Other tax cuts: 8%
Obama Stimulus: 6%
Medicare Part D: 2%
Other reasons: 7%

SOURCE:
The Pew Center report - April 2011

[lextender]

The jobs you presented as lost in November and December, 2008, and January, 2009, were the result of Obama winning the election.

[abbe91]

How funny. Bush was still in charge. Try again.

[jrusso1984]

Who Is Gary Johnson? And Why Is the GOP So Mad at Him?

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/01/who-is-gary-johnson-and-why-is-the-gop-so-mad-at-him/#ixzz2B6X59ZfQ

[ClayManBob]

Interesting article, but it has nothing to do with the subject in discussion here.

[BarefootTurtle]

I read the 12th amendment. It says that the Senate chooses the VP. It does not require the Senate to choose the V.P. from the candidates who ran for V.P. I think that the senate could choose anyone as long as they were eligible to run for the office. Could they make Obama the V.P., or Hilary? Very interesting.

[stupa5]

JV1970 replies: Then the jails will be even fuller than they are now
with the Palin taking up a whole block of cells!

[JV1970]

Once again STUPA5 shows why his ID should be STUPID and not STUPA5! I didn't say anything about Palin! My entire comment was:

Bad_Ranger says:Add a 4th - When Obama loses -- They'll be rioting in the streets...

JV1970 replies: Then the jails will be even fuller than they are now!

___________________

Not a word was said in my original comment about Sarah Palin. That is just something STUPID added to make me mad!

[SoCal71]

There just isn't enough lazy, mentally retarded Americans living in this country to re-elect Obama next week. Only the media sees this as a close race. It won't be.

At the end of the day, New York, Jersey etc will rebuild their states and Obama was a bad President for the past 4 years. That is a fact that is undeniable.

[Mr_Maz]

funny how half of America and the entire rest of the world think that only Lazy, Menatally retarded Americans would elect Romney.

[taomeano]

It is evident you have drunk the fox news kool aid.

[commenter1223]

You forgot the fourth way. The riots when Romney wins!

[Mr_Maz]

You thought the roits in Greece were bad, if Romeny somehow wins the USA can look Foreward to much worse. Romeny and the Republicans will do what they allways do, pillage the less fortunate and middle class to add to their personal fortune.

[leavedcobama]

I will be ready and armed if that happens!...BTW it's forward Mr_Maz....you are obviously one of Obama's retards!

[JoeBlack212]

The claim here is that the Electoral College needs to be ditched in order to insure that the popular vote selects the winner. And what happens if the popular vote total is incredibly close? Like in 1960, 1968, 1976, 2000, 2004 and very likely 2012? The likelihood of complications is increased by orders of magnitudes since there would be challenges to the vote throughout the country. Complications are now limited to one or two states. People who think the system needs to be imprrrrrrrrrroved need to think about the unintended consequences.

[mvymvy]

The idea that recounts will be likely and messy with National Popular Vote is distracting.

The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore's nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.

Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state-by-state winner-take-all methods.

The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.

The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.

We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.

The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
"It's an arsonist itching to burn down the whole neighborhood by torching a single house." Hertzberg

Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.

The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.

No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation's 56 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.

The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets

[jeannutson]

In addition to these very solid reasons that are capable of springing unexpected surprises in this year's election there seems to be a very serious heat and pressure on both sides to win at all costs which in itself is a recipe for a possible heated protest and disagreement over the results irrespective of who wins.