Monday, November 7, 2016

So. What If It's a Tie?

This came up last week. I was running some numbers in my head and said, "Wait. This (s)election could turn into an Electoral College tie. What do we do then?"

Heh. Heh. Heh. I posted the question at NC, little knowing that the media, or at least parts of it, were running the same numbers and asking the same question. What do we do if  it's an EC tie?

Nobody really knows as it hasn't happened since 1800. The process was different then than it is now, so precedent and parallels cannot really be drawn.

According to an analysis of the issue at the election would go to the House of Representatives where under arcane and never-used rules, each state delegation would have one vote. It would take the votes of 26 state delegations, choosing among the top three presidential candidates, to elect a president. The Senate would vote for vice president among the top two candidates, with each senator getting one vote, meaning that 51 votes would be needed to elect a vice president.

Well. Isn't that interesting.

The House that would become electors in case of an EC tie is the incoming House of Representatives, not the currently sitting one. According to polls (who knows?) the Rs are likely to maintain a majority in the House, albeit a reduced one. One vote for each state delegation, however, could become quite complicated, especially if the R and D representatives are close in numbers. There could be a whole lot of horse trading going on. In addition, while the majority of states might have majority R delegations, the question will be one of whether the Rs in the House would vote for Trump or would they vote for Clinton? Clinton's main policies (as opposed to her Identity Politics) are far more closely aligned with standard R policies than are Trump's lawnsprinkler "Policies." Clinton has been actively soliciting R support during this election pageant, and she's bagged more than a few high ranking R leaders. She's been running essentially as a "moderate Republican" -- make of that what you will -- and has been fairly successful in bringing in bi-partisan support, at least among People Who Matter.

Trump on the other hand has been alienating the High and the Mighty of both major parties, as well as plenty of the Rabble, while being seen as a loose cannon, so-called Populist. Well, he's a Populist for some of his class but not for the People. He's basically just conning them, something both parties higher echelons can appreciate, but to them he's doing it wrong.

His basic problem -- apart from being Trump -- is that the faction of the Upper Crust he represents is the wrong one. These are gangsters, conmen, disreputable and socially unacceptable members of the Overclass, and barring something truly outrageous, they cannot be allowed to take power. Period. At least they cannot be seen to take power. How much power they already have is another question altogether.

So my question is whether the R majority in the House would go along with electing Trump despite their misgivings, or would they instead elect Hillary, who -- despite her many flaws -- is at least a known quantity to them. Besides, they'd be able to impeach her right quick -- and they would -- and wouldn't that be a hoot and a half?

They would be able to exploit Hillary to the hilt, and their calculus might well be to go that direction rather than go with the Unpredictable Lawnsprinkler.

Meanwhile, that leaves the Senate to choose between Kaine and Pence. Oh my. Both have been Senators, and apparently both are chummy with the rest of the Senate Club. Whom, then, would they choose? If Dems take the Senate majority -- which is still up in the air, but looks likely, either 50-50 or 51-49 -- then I'd say Kaine would be the Gracious Winner. But you never know. Even with a Dem majority, some renegade D Senator may vote for Pence for any number of reasons, and then... Well, you might have a Hillary presidency with a radical reactionary Pence VP.

Wouldn't that be fun?

In other words, no matter what it looks like a day out, the results could be surprising to everyone, and I have no doubt Our Rulers are juggling the numbers as we speak.

What I heard on the Sabbath Gasbag shows gave me a clue to what they're thinking at the moment: no matter who "wins" the vote (even if it's jiggered to produce the desired outcome), there will be hell to pay. The polarization of the nation is out of control, and neither Trump nor Clinton can or will produce a "Unity Government." (They used Bush 2 as an example of how a highly polarized outcome could be turned into a Unity Government -- without explaining just how that happened... oh well...)

The public opposition to either one will, they said, be fierce, and it could "turn violent." Nothing like this election has happened since 1860, and we know how that turned out.

The People Who Matter are... scared. So what they would want to do, more than anything, is tamp down insurrection and uprisings before they even take place. The role of the President, as we've seen throughout the Obama Presidency especially, is to mollify the masses -- keep them tame while they are thoroughly exploited for the pleasure and profit of the Overclass.

Apparently neither Clinton nor Trump have shown they can do that.


So, perhaps by combining the tickets.... Well, who knows?

The aftermath of Tuesday may only be the start of what's to come. Whoever thought the "status quo" would be preserved (or overthrown) by this election is in for a rude awakening, methinks.

Something else again, something unanticipated, is likely to occur.

No comments:

Post a Comment