Perot doesn't drop out

[skybridge]

A lot of these maps are a little far-fetched. A third party would never do so well against an incumbent. You're forgetting all the "blind" voters who vote for any candidate as long as he's from their party. Given that, 1992 was one of the last elections with unusually high turn out, so, although some people may have got excited about Perot, party loyalty would still have dominated in the end.


(Anyway, if it had actually turned out like some of these maps, how would that have influenced future third parties?)

[Gabu]

A lot of these maps are a little far-fetched. A third party would never do so well against an incumbent. You're forgetting all the "blind" voters who vote for any candidate as long as he's from their party.

Before Perot dropped out, he was leading both Clinton and Bush in the popular vote according to some polls.  Perot winning might not have been likely, but Perot taking at least a few states certainly would have been with poll numbers that high.

[A18]

Assuming no shenanigans before the EV is cast by the electors, which may be a lot to ask for. I foresee a possible deadlocked House which could delay or prevent the election of a President while Acting President Gore is running things pending the election of a President if the GOP decides to be contentious, and with Minority Leader Gingrich, I think that if they can block a President Clinton they will.

How would the House be deadlocked? I'm sure the Democrats had a majority of House delegations.

[No more McShame]

Assuming no shenanigans before the EV is cast by the electors, which may be a lot to ask for. I foresee a possible deadlocked House which could delay or prevent the election of a President while Acting President Gore is running things pending the election of a President if the GOP decides to be contentious, and with Minority Leader Gingrich, I think that if they can block a President Clinton they will.

How would the House be deadlocked? I'm sure the Democrats had a majority of House delegations.

What if Clinton was 3rd?  Would that have ever been messy

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Assuming no shenanigans before the EV is cast by the electors, which may be a lot to ask for. I foresee a possible deadlocked House which could delay or prevent the election of a President while Acting President Gore is running things pending the election of a President if the GOP decides to be contentious, and with Minority Leader Gingrich, I think that if they can block a President Clinton they will.

How would the House be deadlocked? I'm sure the Democrats had a majority of House delegations.

OK, Wikipedia has a nice list for the 103rd Congress organized by state so lets see.

D - Alabama
R - Alaska
T - Arizona
T - Arkansas
D - California
R - Colorado
T - Connecticit
R - Delaware
R - Florida
D - Georgia
D - Hawaii
T - Idaho
D - Illinois
D - Indiana
R - Iowa
T - Kansas
D - Kentucky
D - Louisiana
T - Maine
T - Maryland
D - Massachusetts
D - Michigan
D - Minnesota
D - Mississippi
D - Missouri
D - Montana
R - Nebraska
T - Nevada
T - New hampshire
D - New Jersey
R - New Mexico
D - New York
D - North Carolona
D - North Dakota
D - Ohio
D - Oklahoma
D - Oregon
D - Pennsylvania
T - Rhode Island
T - South Carolina
T - South Dakota
D - Tennessee
D - Texas
D - Utah
D - Vermont
D - Virginia
D - Washington
D - West Virginia
R - Wisconsin
R - Wyoming

Total D:29 R:9 T:12

That's with the actual 103rd congress tho.

Five states, Kentucky, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Utah are only the loss of one Freshman Democrat who was not relected for the104th Congress from being a tied or Republican delegation.
Also, if Hayes makes his party switch a Congress earlier, Louisiana is a tied delegation for the 103rd Congress instead of a Democratic one.  That makes 6 Democratic delegations that could concevably be butterflied away by the side effect of Perot staying in the race.

[No more McShame]

Am I reading this right?  If Clinton took 3rd then the House could vote for him but the Senate couldn't vote for Gore?  Clinton/Stockdale lol

Amendment XII

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

EDIT: Would make a neat Alternative TL.  Somehow I don't think the American people would have approved of the House giving the election to their 3rd choice.

[A18]

What if four people tied for first place?

[Rob]

A huge Clinton blowout in the electoral vote (438-96, with Perot taking Maine's 4), and a popular victory of 39-32, with Perot polling 28 percent. Perot would come within 5 percent of carrying Alaska, Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, and New Hampshire.

Clinton would run third in Alaska, Utah, Idaho, North Dakota, and Nebraska; Bush would run third in Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.

[No more McShame]

What if four people tied for first place?

Popular votes?

[A18]

What if four people tied for first place?

Popular votes?

EVs

[Erc]

Thankfully, not possible under the current system (269/2 is not an integer).

Possible but worrying is:

What if two candidates tie for third and fourth?  Or if there's a three-way tie for second?

[No more McShame]

What if four people tied for first place?

Popular votes?

EVs

No, sorry.  Would popular votes be used as a tiebreaker?  The Constitution doesn't really say anything.  That would certainly be ugly.

[A18]

Thankfully, not possible under the current system (269/2 is not an integer).

Why does that matter? There could be more than four candidates.

[skybridge]

A lot of these maps are a little far-fetched. A third party would never do so well against an incumbent. You're forgetting all the "blind" voters who vote for any candidate as long as he's from their party.

Before Perot dropped out, he was leading both Clinton and Bush in the popular vote according to some polls.  Perot winning might not have been likely, but Perot taking at least a few states certainly would have been with poll numbers that high.

Unfortunately those polls may not be the best indicators. Now that Bush is safely re-elected it's safe for only 45% of the public to agree with his handling of the presidency, whereas come election time party loyalty factored in more strongly.

The same thing would have happened in 1992. While the polls were conducted more people would have found it safe to disagree with their party than on election day.