No electoral majority in 1968

[BlackMage]

WI George Wallace had managed to split the vote to such a degree in 1968 that there had been no direct electoral vote majority? Would the election have gone to the house, or could some deal be done with Wallace to make his electoral voters support one particular candidate? (I presume that was the outcome he wanted, anyway; all accounts refer to him wanting to split the vote, to allow him leverage in subsequent negotiations)

According to http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?off=0&year=1968, there would be no majority if Missouri, Alaska and New Jersey, Nixon's closest states, went to Humphrey. A change of only 41 971 votes would be required for this. What would be required to create this swing? We could either have a stronger Wallace, since all those states had substantial Wallace votes in the order of 10%, or a stronger Humphrey (or another candidate). The prospect of Wallace winning more seats is probably more difficult, since his vote was very centralised in the Deep South. The Democrats had a House majority in 1968, so the election would probably have gone to Humphrey; what would the effect of post-electoral wrangling have been, though, especially on a Humphrey presidency? What would Wallace's role have been in such negotiations?

 

[Wendell]

Corrupt bargain, anyone? Anaologies of the 1824 race may come into play.

 

[BlackMage]

Corrupt bargain, anyone? Anaologies of the 1824 race may come into play.

Ah, but who would strike the bargain? If it had gone to the House, would Humphrey have been seen as doing the wrong thing? Would he be prepared to hold his nose and deal with Wallace? Or would Nixon deal with Wallace, and face the political consequences?

 

[Wendell]

Ah, but who would strike the bargain? If it had gone to the House, would Humphrey have been seen as doing the wrong thing? Would he be prepared to hold his nose and deal with Wallace? Or would Nixon deal with Wallace, and face the political consequences?

A Really good question. My guess is that Humphrey will negotiate with Wallace's people. Although, the real answer to your question lies in each state's congressional delegations in 1968. The House of Representatives (with each state's delegations casting one vote) will select the President from the top three electoral vote earners for President. The Senate will select the VP from the top two electoral vote earners for that post.

My guess is that Humphrey makes a deal with Wallace, and Wallace has the delegations supporting him vote instead for Humphrey. In return, Wallace gets a cabinet post.

 

[BlackMage]

A Really good question. My guess is that Humphrey will negotiate with Wallace's people. Although, the real answer to your question lies in each state's congressional delegations in 1968. The House of Representatives (with each state's delegations casting one vote) will select the President from the top three electoral vote earners for President. The Senate will select the VP from the top two electoral vote earners for that post.

My guess is that Humphrey makes a deal with Wallace, and Wallace has the delegations supporting him vote instead for Humphrey. In return, Wallace gets a cabinet post.

Well, I think Wallace would want more than a cabinet post; he was campaigning largely on race relations. If he strikes a deal, we could see a rollback of much of the civil rights movement, including a return to segregation in the South. This could completely shatter the Democrats' 'rainbow coalition'. If Wallace managed to get much of his program over the line, we could see African-Americans leaving for the Republican Party in droves, not to mention liberal whites. This would completely reverse national politics of the time, returning perhaps to an early twentieth century equilibrium.

 

[Wendell]

Well, I think Wallace would want more than a cabinet post; he was campaigning largely on race relations. If he strikes a deal, we could see a rollback of much of the civil rights movement, including a return to segregation in the South. This could completely shatter the Democrats' 'rainbow coalition'. If Wallace managed to get much of his program over the line, we could see African-Americans leaving for the Republican Party in droves, not to mention liberal whites. This would completely reverse national politics of the time, returning perhaps to an early twentieth century equilibrium.

Maybe the U.S. develops a meaningful third party as well?

 

[Tgibbs]

I can't see how Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace can enter into any agreement. The two men were on completely opposite ends of the political spectrum on a variety of issues, even though they were both ostensibly Democrats.

Civil rights alone would have prevented any kind of a deal. HHH was probably the foremost pro-civil rights politician of his generation. His civil rights speech to the '48 Democratic convention was really the beginning of the party's commitment to civil rights. And Wallace was the symbol of resistance to civil rights. After the election, with Nixon narrowly winning, Wallace publicly said his supporters were probably satisfied with the outcome, because beating Humphrey was their primary goal.

Neither Humphrey nor Wallace could negotiate -- let alone reach an agreement -- with the other, without supporters of both feeling completely betrayed. Humphrey would never want Wallace in his cabinet, and Wallace wouldn't want to serve there.

I don't know if Nixon would bargain with Wallace, but Wallace and Nixon had more in common than Wallace and Humphrey. I'm not accusing Nixon of being an anti-civil rights racist, but Wallace and Nixon were both critical of the Earl Warren Supreme Court and both emphasized "law and order" in the campaign.

If Wallace was going to throw his support to anyone, it would be more likely to go to Nixon than Humphrey, if only because he probably disagreed with Nixon less.

 

[BlackMage]

Well, if Wallace were to deal with Nixon, what would the resulting Nixon administration be like? Good points on Humphrey; I didn't know that about his previous stances. To what extent would Nixon give in to Wallace's demands? Could he serve in a Nixon cabinet?

 

[MidTennHitman]

Walace wasnt interested in a cabinet position. He would have probably demanded a preemptive strike on any and all busing plans. Segregation in the south could not and would not have been brought back under Nixon. Walllace was also pro-Vietnam War and would have pushed for more troops in Vietnam in an attempt to win it outright rather than having the troops being sent in with no clear goal and not enough to win.

Wallace may have taken a Sec of Defense under Nixon but that is the only post I could see him accepting, but Nixon wouldnt have offered Wallace any role dealing with foreign nations

And no, Humphrey couldnt swing any deal with the Wallaceites so if anyone did swing a deal to win the Presidency, it would have to be Nixon