Electoral College Tie

[Erc]

Always an unlikely scenario, but considering Trump's uphill road, one worth considering.  If Clinton wins CO, PA, and VA, for example, the best Trump can do is the narrow road to a tie via NH/NV.

Setting aside elector / party-switching shenanigans for the moment, let's consider how a pure party-line vote in the House would be expected to go.  Remember that each state gets one vote.

Obviously, given the Republicans' advantage in the House (and that the Republicans have a lot of Plains/Mountain West states in their back pockets), Trump is heavily favored there.  Going by Cook's ratings, they already have 23 of the required 26 states locked down; barring a Democratic wave (which is unlikely in the event of a EC tie), they have these states:

(The states with 30% shading are those where a single representative abstaining or switching could cause the state to deadlock; in Utah, this would require Mia Love to lose, as well.)

They'd need three more states to hit 26.  Obvious candidates are:

Florida: they'd need to win a single competitive race, with FL-02 or FL-07 likely possibilities.
Alaska: hold the single seat here.
Montana: hold the single seat here.
Virginia: win a single competitive race; VA-05 or VA-10 would do the trick.

Michigan and Arizona are also quite doable, and Wisconsin and Colorado are also within reach.  Iowa and Nevada are a bit of a stretch, but by that point they'd have a clear majority.

TL;DR: If it goes to the House, Republicans will have a majority of states unless there's a huge disconnect between Presidential and Congressional voting.

Of course, the big question is, would it come down to a party-line vote?  Could a faithless elector put a third option on the table that could attract enough Republican support to force multiple ballots? If so, who?  If it's not a mass movement, are there enough individual House members with the power to deadlock a state and enough antipathy for Trump to do it?  The ones that can are shaded light blue above (plus AK, MT, AZ, WI, CO, NV, & IA, should they win those).

And, entering the realm of fantasy, how about a Veep-like scenario where the House deliberately deadlocks so that Pence gets to act as President?  This assumes, of course, that the Republicans keep the Senate; if they don't I can't imagine the House deliberately throwing the acting Presidency to Kaine / Warren / whomever.

[SingingAnalyst]

Could easily happen

Clinton/? 47% / 269 EV
Trump/Pence 46% / 269 EV
Johnson/Weld 6% / 0 EV

[Erc]

Could easily happen

Clinton/? 47% / 269 EV
Trump/Pence 46% / 269 EV
Johnson/Weld 6% / 0 EV

Yep; or alternatively trade Wisconsin for both Nevada and New Hampshire. (These all seem like long shots at this point, but so does any Trump victory).

[Erc]

Trading PA/VA for FL/NH from my quoted scenario above; fits the bill for certain definitions of "plausible."  Nevada and Virginia seem out of place for this 2016 map that looks more like a bad 2004 prediction.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL.

Obama won election with the fewest recorded number of American counties, just 24. NPV would reduce that to just two - Cook County and LA county.

You could run an entire election out of just those two.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL.

Obama won election with the fewest recorded number of American counties, just 24. NPV would reduce that to just two - Cook County and LA county.

You could run an entire election out of just those two.

Ben Kenobi maths:

Population of Cook County -     5.24 million
Population of LA County.   - + 10.02 million
                                           ____________
                                            15. 26 million

Population of United States - 318.9 million

15.26 million / 318.9 million = 0.0479

Therefore, we can test B. kenobi's hypothesis:

0.0479 > 0.5

By Jove! You're right! Focusing on only 4% of the American population, in a densely packed, expensive media market would easily win an election! What a genius you are!

[Fuzzy Bear]

Always an unlikely scenario, but considering Trump's uphill road, one worth considering.  If Clinton wins CO, PA, and VA, for example, the best Trump can do is the narrow road to a tie via NH/NV.

Setting aside elector / party-switching shenanigans for the moment, let's consider how a pure party-line vote in the House would be expected to go.  Remember that each state gets one vote.

Obviously, given the Republicans' advantage in the House (and that the Republicans have a lot of Plains/Mountain West states in their back pockets), Trump is heavily favored there.  Going by Cook's ratings, they already have 23 of the required 26 states locked down; barring a Democratic wave (which is unlikely in the event of a EC tie), they have these states:

(The states with 30% shading are those where a single representative abstaining or switching could cause the state to deadlock; in Utah, this would require Mia Love to lose, as well.)

They'd need three more states to hit 26.  Obvious candidates are:

Florida: they'd need to win a single competitive race, with FL-02 or FL-07 likely possibilities.
Alaska: hold the single seat here.
Montana: hold the single seat here.
Virginia: win a single competitive race; VA-05 or VA-10 would do the trick.

Michigan and Arizona are also quite doable, and Wisconsin and Colorado are also within reach.  Iowa and Nevada are a bit of a stretch, but by that point they'd have a clear majority.

TL;DR: If it goes to the House, Republicans will have a majority of states unless there's a huge disconnect between Presidential and Congressional voting.

Of course, the big question is, would it come down to a party-line vote?  Could a faithless elector put a third option on the table that could attract enough Republican support to force multiple ballots? If so, who?  If it's not a mass movement, are there enough individual House members with the power to deadlock a state and enough antipathy for Trump to do it?  The ones that can are shaded light blue above (plus AK, MT, AZ, WI, CO, NV, & IA, should they win those).

And, entering the realm of fantasy, how about a Veep-like scenario where the House deliberately deadlocks so that Pence gets to act as President?  This assumes, of course, that the Republicans keep the Senate; if they don't I can't imagine the House deliberately throwing the acting Presidency to Kaine / Warren / whomever.

The answer to that question is, "Of course, and it's more possible this year than last year."

The GOP will have majorities in over 25 states; they have the power to elect the next President if no one gets to 270.  Lots of Republicans have axes to grind.

One option would be what would happen if Ted Cruz got enough Faithless Electors to put the leader under 270.  What happens if Cruz gets a number of Texas's electors to vote for him?  There would be a problem here, in that much of the House Republican Caucus hates Cruz and wouldn't dump their nominee for Lyin' Ted, but that's one option.

Another option would be if Faithless GOP Electors bolted and voted for Paul Ryan?  Ryan is, more than anyone, the "leader" of the "Republican Party".  Would House Republicans dump Trump for Ryan?  That's much more likely if the Election goes to the House and Ryan is the 3rd candidate.  It would give them a chance to elect a President they are in greater agreement with, and whose agenda is closer to theirs.  They wouldn't risk their careers for Ted Cruz, but they might for Paul Ryan, and Paul Ryan would be much less of a gamble. 

It could happen.  In a real way, if Republicans could campaign for Trump, knowing that Faithless Electors are waiting in the wings to sabotage his victory, it would be the ultimate Machiavellian power grab in American political history.  But it would be a way for the traditional Republican conservatives to elect THEIR candidate, despite all of what has transpired, and elect someone with a chance of being popular, given the circumstances.

[Slander and/or Libel]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL.

Obama won election with the fewest recorded number of American counties, just 24. NPV would reduce that to just two - Cook County and LA county.

You could run an entire election out of just those two.

Are you saying Obama only won 24 counties in 2012 or 2008? What in the world are you even trying to say?

[jollyschwa]

There's also no guarantee that the state votes will be along party lines.  I'm sure there will be at least some pressure for them to vote according to their state's PV.  Nevada for example.

[kohler]

Now 48 states have winner-take-all state laws for awarding electoral votes, 2 have district winner laws.

There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast in a deviant way, for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party (one clear faithless elector, 15 grand-standing votes, and one accidental vote). 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.

The electors are and will be dedicated party activist supporters of the winning party’s candidate who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

[Bojack Horseman]

As for the original topic, I don't even want to think about the chaos that would erupt if this election went to the House of Representatives. I think there's enough #NeverTrump support in the House that nobody would gain an electoral majority even there and this election would go into triple overtime.

[Erc]

As for the original topic, I don't even want to think about the chaos that would erupt if this election went to the House of Representatives. I think there's enough #NeverTrump support in the House that nobody would gain an electoral majority even there and this election would go into triple overtime.

I may at some point do a closer analysis of the individual House members, but the most likely targets for #NeverTrump would be:

Michigan: Justin Amash is a committed anti-Trumper, and Bill Huizenga and Fred Upton could be convinced.

Florida: Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Carlos Curbelo both seem to be committed anti-Trumpers, with David Jolly and Mario Diaz-Balart possibly receptive, as well.  

Arizona: Martha McSally would be the likely candidate here (or the Democrats could simply defeat her).

Nebraska: Jeff Fortenberry is a likely target.

Idaho: Mark Simpson, potentially.

What's unclear is whether the various other House members who currently support Trump in a Trump vs. Hillary battle could be convinced to support a third option if one presented itself (or to go for infinite deadlock and Mike Pence, à la Veep, if such an option is even constitutional).

If there are no faithless electors, and it comes down to Trump, Hillary, or deadlock to Pence, a difficult optics question in some states may be the fact that #NeverTrumpers might have to vote for Hillary to force a deadlock, which they may not be able to bring themselves to do.

[Erc]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-7-levels-of-trump-support-in-congress/

538 has a fun tool that one can use for these purposes, as well.