Which is more plausible

...as a POD for abolition(or at least defanging) of the Electoral College in the USA?
1. Perot selects a more sensible/sane vp nominee in 1992 and does not briefly drop out of the presidential race. He goes on to win a few states and sufficient electoral votes to throw the election to the house (a stretch, I know). The Democratic majority opts for Clinton, but his legitimacy is tenuous at best.
2. Kerry wins Ohio and thus the electoral vote in 2004. Obviously, this is an all too eerie echo of the OTL 2000 election.; 2 presidents in as many elections who failed to win even a plurality of the vote.
I know modifying the EC would mean a constitutional amendment, and all the difficulties that entails.
 
As odd as it sounds, I almost think option 2 would be the more likely of the two. The media would go insane and the whole situation would spawn the same sort of rhetoric that we're seeing nowadays...

That being said, I think it would be very difficult to implement structural changes of this magnitude post-Carter. For some reason I could almost see Eisenhower (or a congress in a more turbulent 60's) doing something like this.
 

JoeMulk

Banned
It could also have happened if in 68 Wallace denies Nixon an electoral majority, and Humphrey becomes president despite losing both the popular and electoral votes due to the election being thrown to the Democratic controlled house.
 
Top