Wallace Succeeds.

In the General Election of 1968, George Wallace ran on the American Independent ticket with Curtis LeMay as a segregationist. He didn't expect to win, but he hoped to deadlock the Electoral College and put Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey in a position where, to gain a majority, they would have to appease him. How? By agreeing to use the authority of the Presidency to end desegregation in America.

He failed. He carried only five States, impressive enough for a third party ticket, but with only forty-six Electors between them, not enough to deadlock the vote. Nixon got just a touch above three hundred, more than enough in his quest to win the White House without having to shake hands with a segregationist devil.

What if he didn't? What if Wallace got it done, and Nixon was only able to get a plurality? Wallace goes to Nixon and lays it out. Promise me that a Nixon Administration will be hostile to desegregation in America, and I will work in support of you when the House meets to elect one of us the next President. Refuse, and I'll see what Mr. Humphrey has to say.

What happens?
 
I suspect Nixon would promise then renege on it. Would Humphrey work with Wallace period?


If Neither side agrees to deal with Wallace, the way it works in the House is that the 3rd place guys votes get tossed out, my guess is Nixon wins in such a scenario.

If Wallace gets his way we'd probably have the some more elements of the Civil Rights movement turn violent.
 
As I understand it when the vote is thrown into the House, they vote between the top three candidates in the Electoral College, which in this case would be Nixon, Humphrey, and Wallace himself, though Wallace has no intention of winning. Meanwhile the Senate meets to elect a Vice-President. If the House does not pick a President before a certain date then the VP-elect becomes Acting President until they do.

It's possible, I think, that if one of the two main candidates were only slightly short in the Electoral College that the other man might call on some of his Electors to change their votes to give him the majority he needs, thus keeping Wallace out of the picture. I could see Humphrey asking some of his Electors to back Nixon for this very reason, in the hopes that Nixon will at least not support racist agendas.
 
As I understand it when the vote is thrown into the House, they vote between the top three candidates in the Electoral College, which in this case would be Nixon, Humphrey, and Wallace himself, though Wallace has no intention of winning. Meanwhile the Senate meets to elect a Vice-President. If the House does not pick a President before a certain date then the VP-elect becomes Acting President until they do.

It's possible, I think, that if one of the two main candidates were only slightly short in the Electoral College that the other man might call on some of his Electors to change their votes to give him the majority he needs, thus keeping Wallace out of the picture. I could see Humphrey asking some of his Electors to back Nixon for this very reason, in the hopes that Nixon will at least not support racist agendas.

Possible, but would actually happen only, to use political lingo, when pigs fly. You can't ask someone to throw an election like that - it's both political suicide and illegal in several states. If it goes to the House, which will vote by state delegation with 26 votes needed to win, Nixon and Humphrey + key leaders in various state delegations - especially in those states with equally divided delegations - would meet before hand to work out which one HHH or NMN, is going to be pushed over the top. Muskie will likely be elected by the Senate as VP, given that Curtis LeMay will be excluded.
 
Possible, but would actually happen only, to use political lingo, when pigs fly. You can't ask someone to throw an election like that - it's both political suicide and illegal in several states. If it goes to the House, which will vote by state delegation with 26 votes needed to win, Nixon and Humphrey + key leaders in various state delegations - especially in those states with equally divided delegations - would meet before hand to work out which one HHH or NMN, is going to be pushed over the top. Muskie will likely be elected by the Senate as VP, given that Curtis LeMay will be excluded.

It's not illegal in any state to ask your own pledged electors to vote for someone else. There are laws in 24 states against faithless electors, but that's an entirely different scenario.
 
It's not illegal in any state to ask your own pledged electors to vote for someone else. There are laws in 24 states against faithless electors, but that's an entirely different scenario.

No, it's not a different scenario. Unless the legislature in one of those state's passes a law permitting the person's elected as electors to vote for someone other then the individual they had been elected to vote for, then they'd be doing something illegal. A faithless elector is one who does not vote for whom they've been elected to vote for. Just because a candidate says "do it" doesn't make it legal to do.

______________

Now, back on topic:

I suspect Nixon would promise then renege on it. Would Humphrey work with Wallace period?

If Neither side agrees to deal with Wallace, the way it works in the House is that the 3rd place guys votes get tossed out, my guess is Nixon wins in such a scenario.

If Wallace gets his way we'd probably have the some more elements of the Civil Rights movement turn violent.

No, all three names would be put before the House and the representatives would vote by state caucus, with 26 votes needed to win.

Actually, from what I know of RMN, he'd tell Wallace to shove his offer where the sun don't shine (or words similar). There's no way in hell that the GOP leadership is going to sabotage their civil rights platform by getting into bed with Wallace. Beside, what can Wallace offer Nixon that Humphrey, even in his TTL weaker political condition, couldn't and at a lower political cost? Nothing. Humphrey, even here can still put Nixon over the top. Also, Nixon may as well deal w/Humphrey, given that there's a decent to good chance that the next VP is going to be Muskie rather than Agnew.
 
No, it's not a different scenario. Unless the legislature in one of those state's passes a law permitting the person's elected as electors to vote for someone other then the individual they had been elected to vote for, then they'd be doing something illegal. A faithless elector is one who does not vote for whom they've been elected to vote for. Just because a candidate says "do it" doesn't make it legal to do.
But not all states have faithless elector laws, so enough electors could be legally allowed to switch.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
. . If it goes to the House, which will vote by state delegation with 26 votes needed to win, .
And if I'm remembering correctly, it's not California, Texas, New York, etc., being the "big" states with more electoral votes. As you're saying, every state delegation gets a single vote and that changes the calculation.
 
And if I'm remembering correctly, it's not California, Texas, New York, etc., being the "big" states with more electoral votes. As you're saying, every state delegation gets a single vote and that changes the calculation.

Correct; California delegation = 1 vote, New York delegation = 1 vote, Wyoming delegation = 1 vote, Alaska delegation = 1 vote, every other state delegation = 1 vote each.
 
Correct; California delegation = 1 vote, New York delegation = 1 vote, Wyoming delegation = 1 vote, Alaska delegation = 1 vote, every other state delegation = 1 vote each.

Indeed. At least two thirds of all State Delegations must be present for the vote to be legally binding, IIRC, and at least half + 1 of those present must vote for a candidate for him to become President-Elect. If this has not happened by the set deadline, then the Vice-President chosen by the Senate becomes Acting President until the House hands down a final vote. If both chambers are undecided by the deadline, the Speaker of the House will become Acting President until at least one of them chooses.
 
Indeed. At least two thirds of all State Delegations must be present for the vote to be legally binding, IIRC, and at least half + 1 of those present must vote for a candidate for him to become President-Elect. If this has not happened by the set deadline, then the Vice-President chosen by the Senate becomes Acting President until the House hands down a final vote. If both chambers are undecided by the deadline, the Speaker of the House will become Acting President until at least one of them chooses.

A quorum for the purpose of electing a president consists of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. So, in theory, 33 representatives could show up and, if each was from a different state, there'd be a quorum. However, in order to elect a president, the votes of 26 of those 33 persons would be needed.
 
As I understand it in the event of no absolute majority in the electoral college the US Senate elects a VP from the top 2 candidates. Potentially such a vp could act as President until the house got its act together
 

U.S David

Banned
This is easy for this to happen, just have Wallace win Tennesse, North Carliona, and South Carliona. He did came in 2nd in these states.

Then have HHH do better, and win New Jersy and Missouri. These were the cloest states he lost.


Wallac wanted to deal with HHH, he thought he could take the Democratic Nomanation away from him in 1972. This was his ultimate plan.
 
Disagree

In the General Election of 1968, George Wallace ran on the American Independent ticket with Curtis LeMay as a segregationist. He didn't expect to win, but he hoped to deadlock the Electoral College and put Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey in a position where, to gain a majority, they would have to appease him. How? By agreeing to use the authority of the Presidency to end desegregation in America.

xxxxxxxx

I disagree with your premise.

Yes George Wallace had a history of supporting, and defending segregation, but that was not his theme in running for president in 1968. I think by then the segregationists realized they had lost that battle.
 
If the Senate chooses the VP while the House is still deadlocked, and it's Jan. 20th, is the VP President or just Acting President? Because I have a freaky scenario in mind...

Wallace deadlocks House while Nixon and Humphrey refuse to deal with him. Senate chooses Muskie.

Muskie then nominates Humphrey as VP; he's confirmed, Muskie resigns, Humphrey becomes President. He then chooses Muskie.

Or, would Musckie choose Nixon and resign? Would Nixon agree to work with Muskie as a nod to Democrats for their willingness not to work with Wallace? Then Muskie resigns, Nixon becomes President, and he nominates Muskie?

Or, doesn't it work that way?
 
If the Senate chooses the VP while the House is still deadlocked, and it's Jan. 20th, is the VP President or just Acting President? Because I have a freaky scenario in mind...

Yes. Basically, if the House has not made a final decision by the deadline but the Senate has, then the new Vice-President becomes Acting President until the House hands down a final choice. Muskie would be in office only until the House voted, which would likely mean Nixon becoming President with Muskie as his VP.
 
Top