Challenge: Have a one-state winner capture the presidency
- Thread starter Jasen777
- Start date
Mathematically, the best option is 1796 or 1800, when Virginia had 21 of the 139 votes in the Electoral College. I think that's a bigger proportion than any other state had since-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment#Past_apportionments
should help.
1796 is probably the best of those two, as it was the first contested Presidential election- Washington was elected unopposed in 1789 and 1792. The idea of "party tickets" did not yet exist- in fact the President and VP ended up being from different parties. So it could well be more chaotic than it actually was. Also, there is no 12th amendment yet, so no habitation clause, which makes your idea much more difficult after 1803. This means that each state could end up voting for a candidate from that state...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment#Past_apportionments
should help.
1796 is probably the best of those two, as it was the first contested Presidential election- Washington was elected unopposed in 1789 and 1792. The idea of "party tickets" did not yet exist- in fact the President and VP ended up being from different parties. So it could well be more chaotic than it actually was. Also, there is no 12th amendment yet, so no habitation clause, which makes your idea much more difficult after 1803. This means that each state could end up voting for a candidate from that state...
Or 1864, where a 3rd party candidate (fromt he Radical Republicans) also runs, and keeps LIncoln from a majority, then Lincoln is assassinated and McClellan is sent out to battle and dies, or dies of wounds suffered in a battle, before the House votes. Indeed, just LIncoln being assassinated might do it, with McClellan being the peace candidate and Andrew Johnson the Vice President in waiting.
Such a person could, with split vote, win only their home state before the House votes. The only problem is, I'm not sure what would set one running like that.
It could be someone so popular in the 18th/9th century that the others defer to that person; but I'm not sure who that might be. Andrew Jackson had lots of enemies later, and was too popular in 1824. I'll agree that I don't *think* I can see it happening int he 20th, even if something makes Eisenhower run as a 3rd party candidate in 1948 and Tuurmond/Wallace don't get as many votes as he does. I *might* be able to see Truman, if he's unpopular enough, and Dewey, if he agrees mostly with Ike and feels he has little shot, deferring to him.
But, yeah, I thikn 1796 is the most likely.
Such a person could, with split vote, win only their home state before the House votes. The only problem is, I'm not sure what would set one running like that.
It could be someone so popular in the 18th/9th century that the others defer to that person; but I'm not sure who that might be. Andrew Jackson had lots of enemies later, and was too popular in 1824. I'll agree that I don't *think* I can see it happening int he 20th, even if something makes Eisenhower run as a 3rd party candidate in 1948 and Tuurmond/Wallace don't get as many votes as he does. I *might* be able to see Truman, if he's unpopular enough, and Dewey, if he agrees mostly with Ike and feels he has little shot, deferring to him.
But, yeah, I thikn 1796 is the most likely.
Would we need a coherent third party, pushing the POD back? Or would it suffice to have both parties splintering into competing factions over the course of the election?
Any suggestions as to who the plausible candidates might have been?
The actual winner chooses a pretty bad vice candidate. The second best candidate is a uniting figure, electable even for the opposition. He wins one very populous state (California) by a wide margin, has about the same votes as his opponent in states which split the electorate, and loses only marginally in the remaining states - thus getting quite a few electoral votes.
The winner has a heart attack right after the popular vote, or dies another non-polarising death. The vice presidential candidate already made a few remarks which nearly cost the winner the election, and adds some more nonsense, infuriating his party and making him near unelectable. The candidate from the opposition offers to form a unity government. He also manages to get even more popular during the first days after the election, so that, had the election taken place a week later, he would have won. With a little bit of pushing and shoving, he manages to sway a part of the electorate, thus becoming president.
The winner has a heart attack right after the popular vote, or dies another non-polarising death. The vice presidential candidate already made a few remarks which nearly cost the winner the election, and adds some more nonsense, infuriating his party and making him near unelectable. The candidate from the opposition offers to form a unity government. He also manages to get even more popular during the first days after the election, so that, had the election taken place a week later, he would have won. With a little bit of pushing and shoving, he manages to sway a part of the electorate, thus becoming president.
IOTL, 13 people received Electoral College votes:
2 Virginians (Jefferson & Washington, despite Washington refusing a third term)
3 New Yorkers (Aaron Burr, George Clinton, John Jay)
2 from South Carolina (the brothers Thomas & Charles Pinckney)
2 from North Carolina (James Iredell & Samuel Johnston)
2 from Massachusetts (John & Samuel Adams)
One each from Connecticut (Oliver Ellsworth) and Maryland (John Henry)
Of these, Jefferson is the most likely single-state winner.
Hmm...perhaps Perot wins a big state like Texas and throws it into the House of Representatives?
It turns into a Bush 1.0-vs-Clinton partisan deadlock and Congress decides to choose Perot as a compromise?
It turns into a Bush 1.0-vs-Clinton partisan deadlock and Congress decides to choose Perot as a compromise?
maverick
Banned
In an even crazier election of 1824, 6 candidates run (Crawford, Jackson, Calhoun, Clay, Macon, Adams), Adams only takes Massachusetts, but makes a deal with Clay...
Adams is POTUS, Calhoun is VP and Clay takes the State...Jackson is even more pissed...
Or...perhaps 1836...but in any case I think that in the 1790s or 1800s it is more likely...
Adams is POTUS, Calhoun is VP and Clay takes the State...Jackson is even more pissed...
Or...perhaps 1836...but in any case I think that in the 1790s or 1800s it is more likely...
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
It could happen in 1836:
https://www.msu.edu/~sheppa28/elections.html#1836
If the House then decided for Webster or Mangum (it's unclear if he was a Whig or an independent) you'd have a president who only won Massachusetts' 14 or South Carolina's 11 EVs, respectively (out of a total of 294). But I've no idea if the Whigs had enough seats in the House.
https://www.msu.edu/~sheppa28/elections.html#1836
If the House then decided for Webster or Mangum (it's unclear if he was a Whig or an independent) you'd have a president who only won Massachusetts' 14 or South Carolina's 11 EVs, respectively (out of a total of 294). But I've no idea if the Whigs had enough seats in the House.
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
To keep Van Buren out of the White House:
Van Buren - 146 (148 needed to win)
Harrison - 85
White - 38
Webster - 14
Mangum - 11
Van Buren - 146 (148 needed to win)
Harrison - 85
White - 38
Webster - 14
Mangum - 11
Jasen777
Donor
The problem with that is that the House only gets to choose between the top 3 electoral vote recievers.
If, in the event of a tie for the electoral college, I think the Senate and Congress elect the Pres and VP. If the two main party candidates were extremely divisive and the house electing the Pres was split, then a third candidate could be elected as a compromise. There ws som talk of this happening this year, but given the swing to Obama in the last month or so it now seems unlikely
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
Oh shit. Maybe if they ran some other candidates and one of them won only New York. But it might be an even bigger stretch.
Part of the rules to be aware of, and an option...
To the best of my knowlege, the chosen elector votes for the person he chooses. They are, of course, pledged to support a particular candidate, but if they change their mind, their vote still counts!
So, even if said electors are in violation of state law, and go to jail, the results still stand.
So...there's a close election. The Democrats should have won, but a spoiler candidate draws enough votes to hand some key states to the Republicans, and wins one state outright. (Or perhaps gets ONE electoral vote, by winning in one senatorial district in Maine.) <Of course, it's just as easy for the Democrat and Republican roles to be reversed>
Normally, Republican presidency ensues. But, after the election in November, but before the electoral college meets, the candidate is utterly disgraced by a scandal of epic proportions, one that makes Watergate look minor. At the same time, the Democratic candidate is assassinated. Both VP candidates are considered poor choices..strictly "balance the ticket" candidates. One is part of the radical right, the other part of the radical left. The country is in turmoil already...war, depression, energy crunch, or some other mess, and no one wants either of them in ofice in desperate time. The college debates, and finally chooses the third party candidate. It helps if the third party candidate is someone both sides can at least respect, and consider competent. More likely if the democrat and republican candidates are towards the extreme ends of their respecitve parties.
Now, the electoral college has done its duty, presented Congress with a clear winner...it's a done deal.
To the best of my knowlege, the chosen elector votes for the person he chooses. They are, of course, pledged to support a particular candidate, but if they change their mind, their vote still counts!
So, even if said electors are in violation of state law, and go to jail, the results still stand.
So...there's a close election. The Democrats should have won, but a spoiler candidate draws enough votes to hand some key states to the Republicans, and wins one state outright. (Or perhaps gets ONE electoral vote, by winning in one senatorial district in Maine.) <Of course, it's just as easy for the Democrat and Republican roles to be reversed>
Normally, Republican presidency ensues. But, after the election in November, but before the electoral college meets, the candidate is utterly disgraced by a scandal of epic proportions, one that makes Watergate look minor. At the same time, the Democratic candidate is assassinated. Both VP candidates are considered poor choices..strictly "balance the ticket" candidates. One is part of the radical right, the other part of the radical left. The country is in turmoil already...war, depression, energy crunch, or some other mess, and no one wants either of them in ofice in desperate time. The college debates, and finally chooses the third party candidate. It helps if the third party candidate is someone both sides can at least respect, and consider competent. More likely if the democrat and republican candidates are towards the extreme ends of their respecitve parties.
Now, the electoral college has done its duty, presented Congress with a clear winner...it's a done deal.
1968
1) The anti war movement had mainly united around the idea of a third party.
2) LBJ is therefore the Democrat candidate.
3) Republicans nominate a moderate.
4) Wallace runs on a ticket with a conservative Republican from the West.
The anti war party wins about a third of the electoral vote, the conservative coalition about a quarter. Johson about 20% and the Republican just over 20%.
Johnson carried Texas, The moderate Republican gets 1 or 2 electoral votes less than that. The anti war candidate gets 200-268 votes, but NOT a majority.
The far right will not be tolerable to a majority in the House. Nor would the anti war candidate.
Johnson, who only carried Texas, is declared reelected.
His VP is either from the far right or the far left.
1) The anti war movement had mainly united around the idea of a third party.
2) LBJ is therefore the Democrat candidate.
3) Republicans nominate a moderate.
4) Wallace runs on a ticket with a conservative Republican from the West.
The anti war party wins about a third of the electoral vote, the conservative coalition about a quarter. Johson about 20% and the Republican just over 20%.
Johnson carried Texas, The moderate Republican gets 1 or 2 electoral votes less than that. The anti war candidate gets 200-268 votes, but NOT a majority.
The far right will not be tolerable to a majority in the House. Nor would the anti war candidate.
Johnson, who only carried Texas, is declared reelected.
His VP is either from the far right or the far left.