Skip to content

@MJosephSheppard → GOP Doesn’t Need Vote Majority/Electoral College Or Supreme Court To Win In #2016

21 November 2015 @ 16:05

MJSheppard-Logo-001cx

GOP HAS LITTLE KNOW BUT POSSIBLY HUGE ADVANTAGE OVER THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FOR THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

It is a completely realistic proposition that the 2016 presidential election could be won by the GOP without a popular vote a majority or 270+ Electoral College votes or, as in the 2000 Bush/Gore election, the assistance of the Supreme Court.

This map via “Newsalert” of the possible state by state results clearly shows a more than strong possibility of such an outcome:

MJSheppard-2692

The vital states, Florida/Virginia/Ohio were won by President Obama in 2012 with majorities that could easily be overturned, or held, in the case of Ohio. That would make Iowa,Colorado and Nevada, all swing states, the final key to win, lose or tie.

In the map above there is a tie. To reach this situation, one vote short of the 270 to win Electoral College majority, is quite clearly a possible outcome. Further it is not dependent on either candidate having a majority of the popular vote. A number of presidential elections have been won or lost without a majority, Bush in 2000 obviously being a recent case.

In this scenario with neither candidate (whomever they are) having the 270 electoral college votes needed for outright victory, under the constitution Trump, the presumptive GOP standard bearer, and Clinton would, presuming no other candidate had any electoral college votes, have their chances determined by the House of Representatives

Every state would would caucus, have one vote based on the result of each states party representation. Thus, for example New York’s one vote would go to Hillary (That state having more Democratic Congressmen than Republican) and Wyoming’s one vote would go to Trump.

Given it would be unlikely that the GOP would lose control of the House in the 2016 elections and that, on the most recent analysis, the GOP would have a majority of the 50 states votes based on caucus outcomes when balloting.

The current situation regarding the caucus composition is as per this map:

MJSheppard-2014HouseElections

The Democratic party would cast 14 votes for Hillary. The Republicans could caucus 33 state votes for Trump and 3 states votes are undetermined at present, this could of course change either way in 2016 but it seems unlikely that whatever their final structure it would affect the outcome given the huge majority of state caucuses the GOP controls. The situation of Washington D.C. is unclear but even if it were allowed a “caucus” vote it would not change the outcome.

Thus, without a popular vote majority nor an Electoral College one and without the aid of the Supreme Court Donald Trump could be sworn in as president in January 2016 thanks to the Constitution.

The full constitutional scenario is set out below…

The constitution is very clear on the matter. Article 12 states, inter- alia:

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.

Thus, if the no candidate with an electoral college majority scenario plays out, and presuming there are no other candidates who have won electoral votes, the House would meet to choose the next president by January 20th 2016, with the states having one vote each, whilst the Senate would meet to choose the Vice-President.

Based on the current composition, and presumably similar composition post November 2015, of the House and if voting went strictly on party lines, with no vote switching or abstentions in states with a close proportion of Republicans and Democrats, the Republican candidate would be chosen on the first ballot.

According to information supplied by the Clerk of the House of Representatives, the current composition of the house by party is:

States with a Republican party majority of Representatives    33

States with a Democratic party majority of Representatives    14

States with an equal number of  Representatives                3

What can happen to cause a crisis, or give victory to the Democrats? If there are changes in swing states delegations due to a move back to the Dem’s from the GOP’s perhaps, high watermark result in November 2014, a Hillary landslide with long coattails.In that scenario a constitutional crisis could come into play if the Republicans lost their majority in 8 caucuses giving a 25/25 tie.

The “stolen election” of 1876 brought the country to the brink of civil war. The election of 2016 gives the possibility of a situation where, as in 1824, when no candidate had an electoral majority, the candidate with a significant minority of popular votes might be chosen by the House under heated circumstances.

For all these reasons, especially if the economy is at the current level of unemployment-or worse, the election of 2016 is fraught with a terrible danger for the country.These dangers could be averted, or ameliorated if, well before the actual election, the constitutional  possibilities are well canvassed with the public so they are aware of what might need to be done.

Otherwise, if by the first Monday following the second Wednesday in March 2016, as the constitution requires, there is no President, the Senate’s choice of Vice-President will take over-to who knows what effect.

Mr. Sheppard is the proprietor of the blogs Point Of View and Palin4President 2016. He also writes occasionally for American Thinker and is a man of refined taste. Follow him on Twitter: @MJosephSheppard.

14 Comments leave one →
  1. Donna permalink
    21 November 2015 @ 17:29 17:29

    Please learn to edit your articles better….there is a repetition of half of a paragraph in this entry which makes it unreadable….this guy has done similar prognostications to this in the past, so it is old stuff by now….

    the Donald is going to steamroll the Hildabeast anyway, and make NY red!

    Bob, get some new guest contributors lined up between now and the election please!

    • MJ Sheppard permalink
      21 November 2015 @ 18:01 18:01

      If any Republican wins New York I will eat this column-if you eat it if they don’t-that’s fair.

      Since you are such a high level critic i suggest you nominate yourself as a guest contributor-I look forwards to your no doubt valuable insights

      • Donna permalink
        21 November 2015 @ 18:13 18:13

        Fix your column first so it is readable first
        Second, learn how to take criticism like a man of refined taste…snort
        Third, take a short leap off a high building you creep

        • MJ Sheppard permalink
          21 November 2015 @ 19:15 19:15

          Get stuffed

      • Pedro permalink
        21 November 2015 @ 18:34 18:34

        Most of Donna’s criticism seems fair to me as there are repeating paragraphs in the column which does make it hard to read. I have also seen pretty much this exact article, done by you, posted somewhere else before as well.

        As an author you have to learn from some less than favorable responses IMO and improve when possible, especially when you are a guest contributor.

        • MJ Sheppard permalink
          21 November 2015 @ 19:13 19:13

          Thank you for a reasoned and courteous reply. If the text has come to Bob with duplication it is my fault-he is a busy man and not an editor, I’m honored to have a forum at this exceptional site. However to denigrate the article based on transcription problems is unfair and unkind.

          The basic concept of The House deciding an election has be canvassed before but the probability of it actually happening is now drawn into sharp focus and, in my opinion required amplification because of the current higher probability. Not everyone has seen earlier iterations and it would be wrong to deny new visitors an opportunity to consider the concept (which has met with approval by some already).
          Thank you

  2. Bob from Virginia permalink
    21 November 2015 @ 17:37 17:37

    Wishful and extremely silly thinking. First of all the Democrats have a fortress of over 260 electoral votes, so victory is more or less a given. Second if Trump is nominated he will lose the Hispanic vote in Florida, Virginia, Colorado and Nevada, which guarantees a Democrat victory, third, Virginia, Nevada, Iowa, Ohio and Colorado are not swing states. Any state that went for a pompous charlatan after the passage of Obamacare is solid blue, as they all have and are.

    I do not like it but the election of 2016 is already over, the left-wing fascists, aka Democratic Party, has won. Tragically, for the foreseeable future, also finished is the best thing in history, the United States.

    • MJ Sheppard permalink
      21 November 2015 @ 18:07 18:07

      Nonsense. Ohio was won by 2% Florida by less than a half of one percent.Virginia with any
      moderate swing to the GOP-or better decent GOP turnout is easily winnable then it’s down to any of Colorado/Iowa/Nevada

  3. 21 November 2015 @ 19:06 19:06

    -There was, indeed, part of a paragraph repeated, but it was my fault as Editor. In transferring the article from one format to another, I screwed-up. And I failed, obviously, at proof-reading my work.

    The problem has been fixed.

    -MJS stays as a contributor. I don’t always agree with his arguments, but they are legitimate ones that I think add to TCOTS.

    • Adobe_Walls permalink
      22 November 2015 @ 12:25 12:25

      The only problem I’ve had with him as guest contributor is this is the first time I’ve seen him respond to comments.

      • Pedro permalink
        22 November 2015 @ 13:40 13:40

        I have seen him do this before but maybe not on this excellent site…he is very thin skinned and needs to learn how to take criticism better. When you tell a poster to “get stuffed” on someone else’s site it reflects poorly on Bob which is not cool. JMO.

        • KJOY permalink
          22 November 2015 @ 14:17 14:17

          He also published negative poster’s email addresses on his site after being goaded to….think his blog was off the air for a while after that!! A real piece of work…

  4. Adobe_Walls permalink
    22 November 2015 @ 12:30 12:30

    The problem with your winning what were previously close races scenario is you fail to account for how the dems won those close races in the first place. The Bolsheviks will always find enough bags of ”misplaced ballots” in a corner somewhere to turn a close race

  5. 22 November 2015 @ 13:49 13:49

    Reblogged this on That Mr. G Guy's Blog.

Leave a Reply [Go on...I double-dog dare you]

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: