WI: Bush and Gore get EXACTLY the same amount of votes?

Considering how close the the 2000 presidential election was in Florida, I thought, is there any provision for the chance of 2 candidates getting exactly the same number of votes? What would happen?
 
Hmm... How about no electoral majority? Here's a scenario made by Dave Leip.

Pas.PNG
 
Hmm... How about no electoral majority? Here's a scenario made by Dave Leip.
For that you'd need to have a slight overall decline in Gore's national performance(but not so large as to lose the PV lead to Bush, else Oregon would be gone as well). But at the same time Gore has to flip Florida- maybe if Jeb Bush isn't the governor of that great grey state; Jeb was fairly popular IIRC which might have given the elder shrub a boost.
 
There was a discussion on this possibility a year or so ago. I believe that per Florida law, a tie in the vote would lead to the two candidates "drawing lots." So maybe something like drawing straws, or a coin flip. I think the candidates get to agree upon the method.
 
It depends on the state. In Florida, they were to draw lots.

I've played on this where there's a tie on Illinois in a closer 1960. In Illinois, it's decided by a coin flip. :D
 

NothingNow

Banned
There was a discussion on this possibility a year or so ago. I believe that per Florida law, a tie in the vote would lead to the two candidates "drawing lots." So maybe something like drawing straws, or a coin flip. I think the candidates get to agree upon the method.

We've got to amend that. It leaves too much in the air, and could be rigged.
It should either be something suitably off kilter, like a fishing competition (conducted on one vessel,) or a situation with fixed parameters, like drawing a five-card poker hand from a standard deck of cards.
 
It should either be something suitably off kilter, like a fishing competition (conducted on one vessel,) or a situation with fixed parameters, like drawing a five-card poker hand from a standard deck of cards.
I like this idea. Maybe something with more action in it; a wrestling match, with the current VP acting as referee (so the position has a purpose). Those are expected to be rigged anyway.
 
I like this idea. Maybe something with more action in it; a wrestling match, with the current VP acting as referee (so the position has a purpose). Those are expected to be rigged anyway.
Aka, in the case of Bush vs. Gore...

"You hit me! You're disqualified!"

GORE MADE PRESIDENT OF THE USA!
 
We've got to amend that. It leaves too much in the air, and could be rigged.
It should either be something suitably off kilter, like a fishing competition (conducted on one vessel,) or a situation with fixed parameters, like drawing a five-card poker hand from a standard deck of cards.

I like this idea. Maybe something with more action in it; a wrestling match, with the current VP acting as referee (so the position has a purpose). Those are expected to be rigged anyway.

Aka, in the case of Bush vs. Gore...

"You hit me! You're disqualified!"

GORE MADE PRESIDENT OF THE USA!

I suggest a penalty shootout, with the VP as goalkeeper for both sides! Like in soccer!
 
It depends on the state. In Florida, they were to draw lots.

I've played on this where there's a tie on Illinois in a closer 1960. In Illinois, it's decided by a coin flip. :D

OK, I understand that a scenario with such an amount of voters being absolutely tied is ASBish but the law saying that they'd have to flip a coin for it is... argh!
It never came up to the legislators the possibility of, I don't know, splitting the electoral votes among the tied candidates or forcing a runoff vote?
 
I believe theres an XKCD What If? that said this was about as likely as it raining cocaine bails in the middle of a hurricane in the middle of a meteorite shower. So yeah an exactly tied election is kind of ASB, and even then for most of the states where this would be happening they decide by literally flipping a coin in the case of a tie.
 
I believe theres an XKCD What If? that said this was about as likely as it raining cocaine bails in the middle of a hurricane in the middle of a meteorite shower. So yeah an exactly tied election is kind of ASB, and even then for most of the states where this would be happening they decide by literally flipping a coin in the case of a tie.
When there are so many voters it's indeed ASBish. It's however quite possible to have a tie on local elections and therefore it would be reasonable to have a generic legal mechanism to deal with that eventuality for every election...
 

BlondieBC

Banned
When there are so many voters it's indeed ASBish. It's however quite possible to have a tie on local elections and therefore it would be reasonable to have a generic legal mechanism to deal with that eventuality for every election...

Ties happen in local elections. In my state, seems like they draw for high card from a new deck of cards. It is often the really small elections where there are only hundreds of voters for each candidate. Some of these water districts and school districts are tiny, especially if held in special elections. A mayor quits mid term in a city of 1500 people, and 114 voters show up to vote.
 
In my state, seems like they draw for high card from a new deck of cards.
Quirk :)

A mayor quits mid term in a city of 1500 people, and 114 voters show up to vote.
And if that provides a tie, I say make a runoff with the top two voted candidates. And even if they're the only two that ran in the first place, the enticement of being a runoff to decide a tie will attract new voters... Either way it'll trim the chances of a new tie.

The cards thing is less of a bother though. :p Mheh, I guess I'm creating a storm in a teacup...
 
Top