Election Question

Good. I was writing a timeline where a new party gets the presidency by getting the election thrown to Congress, and I was afraid that would be impossible.
 
Good. I was writing a timeline where a new party gets the presidency by getting the election thrown to Congress, and I was afraid that would be impossible.

Mostly just improbable. The Republicans had the best new party showing was the Republicans in 1854 and they got around 42%. But, in the House each state gets one vote for President, while in the Senate each Senator gets one vote. Most likely scenario is that the House descends into chaos while the 2/3rds of the Senate picked before this new party hit the scene picks the major party running mate that's before them who will act as President until the House can get its act together.
 
Before the 20th Amendment: The old Congress.
After the 20th Amendment: The new Congress.

To quote an old soc.history.what-if post of mine, https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/yMtjG1ksWOQ/cBAe_70cvWcJ

Certainly that is in accord with the *purpose* of the Amendment--the whole
point of pushing back the opening date of the new Congress to January 3 (17
days before the presidential and vice-presidential terms start) was to
prevent a lame duck Congress from making the choice. And yet...there is
nothing in the text of the amendment which specifically states that only the
new Congress can make the choice. In a 1980 Atlantic Monthly article
entitled "Deadlock: What Happens if Nobody Wins", Laurence M. Tribe and
Thomas M. Rollins argue that "The outgoing Republican Eightieth Congress...
could have responded by moving up the date for picking among Democrat Truman,
Republican Thomas Dewey, and States' Rights candidate Strom Thurmond. In any
year, this tactic would surely stir popular protest, but a partisan Congress
could decide to take the heat: the re-elected members are likely to be from
safe districts; the lame duck members have little or nothing left to lose."
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/80oct/deadlock2.htm Tribe and Rollins
argue that this is so contrary to the history and principle of the 20th
Amendment that "the silence of the Constitution's text becomes almost
irrelevant. The document should be interpreted to forbid lame duck
manipulation of the presidency, although a partisan Congress might decide
differently -- and it is anyone's guess how far the courts would go to halt
the lame ducks as they tramp across the spirit of the document for their own
narrow ends."
 
To quote an old soc.history.what-if post of mine, https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/yMtjG1ksWOQ/cBAe_70cvWcJ

Certainly that is in accord with the *purpose* of the Amendment--the whole
point of pushing back the opening date of the new Congress to January 3 (17
days before the presidential and vice-presidential terms start) was to
prevent a lame duck Congress from making the choice. And yet...there is
nothing in the text of the amendment which specifically states that only the
new Congress can make the choice. In a 1980 Atlantic Monthly article
entitled "Deadlock: What Happens if Nobody Wins", Laurence M. Tribe and
Thomas M. Rollins argue that "The outgoing Republican Eightieth Congress...
could have responded by moving up the date for picking among Democrat Truman,
Republican Thomas Dewey, and States' Rights candidate Strom Thurmond. In any
year, this tactic would surely stir popular protest, but a partisan Congress
could decide to take the heat: the re-elected members are likely to be from
safe districts; the lame duck members have little or nothing left to lose."
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/80oct/deadlock2.htm Tribe and Rollins
argue that this is so contrary to the history and principle of the 20th
Amendment that "the silence of the Constitution's text becomes almost
irrelevant. The document should be interpreted to forbid lame duck
manipulation of the presidency, although a partisan Congress might decide
differently -- and it is anyone's guess how far the courts would go to halt
the lame ducks as they tramp across the spirit of the document for their own
narrow ends."

That could be potentially dystopic. I think that just about any reasonable Supreme Court would interpret the 20th as meaning the lame duck's preference is irrelevant, especially the farther you get away from its passage. And I do find it hard to believe that any Congress can get its shit together to reconvene over Christmas just to stick it to the new Congress. But, it would be very interesting.
 
That could be potentially dystopic. I think that just about any reasonable Supreme Court would interpret the 20th as meaning the lame duck's preference is irrelevant, especially the farther you get away from its passage. And I do find it hard to believe that any Congress can get its shit together to reconvene over Christmas just to stick it to the new Congress. But, it would be very interesting.
They'd also have to straight-up abolish the filibuster to get it through in that scenario; someone more offensive than Truman might have to win (maybe the GOP would do it against Wallace).

On the main topic, maybe if the new party was a centrist party. For example, if Perot did better and deadlocked the EC in 1992, and Congress was deadlocked, he could end up the compromise candidate as liberals would think "Better than Bush" and conservatives would think "Better than Clinton".
 
Top