A Compromise President

[muon2]

Sam Spade has had a lot of action on his thread for the tied Electoral College. I didn't want to clutter it up with this thought, so I like to start a new line of discussion. Let me start with the key part of the 12th Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In a tied EC, the Democrat should win based on the likely composition of the state delegations. There might be pressure on some House delegations to side with the winner, but the Democrats would not want to vote for McCain. So instead an elector (or two) is convinced to write in a compromise Democrat (Al Gore for instance). Since three choices for President go to the House the compromise is an eligible candidate. Some Republican-dominated house delegations recognize that McCain cannot win, and don't want Obama. So after some lobbying a bipartisan coalition of states elects the compromise before the constitutional deadline.

There are a lot of what ifs here, but the questions for a tied EC are:

Could one or more electors be convinced to offer a compromise candidate?

Who would reasonably fit the bill as a compromise?

What coalition of states could agree to the compromise candidate (or is it President Biden)?

[TomC]

I thought it said from the top three candidates.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see Barr or Nader as a compromise candidate.

[muon2]

I thought it said from the top three candidates.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see Barr or Nader as a compromise candidate.

The top three is from the names written down by the electors, not from the choices before the voters. The electors can write any name that they like, as long as at least the President or VP is from a state other than their own.

[TomC]

I thought it said from the top three candidates.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see Barr or Nader as a compromise candidate.

The top three is from the names written down by the electors, not from the choices before the voters. The electors can write any name that they like, as long as at least the President or VP is from a state other than their own.

No, some electors would be violating the law to write a name other than the ones their state elected.

[muon2]

I thought it said from the top three candidates.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see Barr or Nader as a compromise candidate.

The top three is from the names written down by the electors, not from the choices before the voters. The electors can write any name that they like, as long as at least the President or VP is from a state other than their own.

No, some electors would be violating the law to write a name other than the ones their state elected.

My assertion is based on the US Constitution. You are correct that in slightly over half the states, there is a statutory requirement binding the electors. That binding has not been tested, and at least one commentator makes a case that it might be unconstitutional.

In any case there are more than enough states available that do not bind electors to permit the scenario.

[Erc]

More interesting (and perhaps more likely) is a faithless elector voting for Clinton in this scenario, which would create all sorts of fun.

[muon2]

More interesting (and perhaps more likely) is a faithless elector voting for Clinton in this scenario, which would create all sorts of fun.

An elector voting independently might well go for Clinton as a preferred choice. I was also considering that an elector would select a president based on some discussion within the House caucuses. Do you think that Clinton is the best name for House delegations to rally around?