WI the Unpledged Electors Decide 1960

In 1960, there were 14 unpledged electors, and one faithless elector, from the South who, in OTL, voted for Harry F. Byrd as a protest vote against desegregation. In OTL, it did not matter who they voted for, as Kennedy had enough pledged electors to win the electoral college. However, all it takes is a 0.6% shift in the popular vote, nationwide, to give Richard Nixon Hawaii, Illinois, and Missouri. This shift makes the electoral vote 263 for Nixon vs. 260 for Kennedy, with 14 electors unpledged to either candidate. If it comes down to this, which candidate will be able to convince the faithless electors to come to their side? Nixon, the man of the OTL Southern Strategy, could do so, but he had ran a less-southern campaign OTL, and Henry Cabot Lodge had promised that there would be a black cabinet member. The Deep South is still mostly Democrat, so that could overcome Catholic, pro-civil rights Kennedy. Johnson could probably swing some southerners as well. If either candidate has to make a deal, it could result in some Deep South segregationist joining the cabinet, and a Civil Rights delay.

What do you think would happen?
 
Tough call. Nixon-Lodge definitely did worse for them on the actual campaign trail, but Kennedy and Johnson have strong convictions for civil rights - perhaps too strong to bullshit being against it. That said, I think Johnson has the slightest edge as an actual southerner - but I'm not sure it's actually enough of an edge to save him.

Excellent idea though.
 
Tough call. Nixon-Lodge definitely did worse for them on the actual campaign trail, but Kennedy and Johnson have strong convictions for civil rights - perhaps too strong to bullshit being against it.

Although LBJ certainly had powerful personal moral convictions in favor of racial equality, he did a damn good job hiding those until he reached the White House. In Master of the Senate, Caro argues pretty persuasively that as of 1960, LBJ's reputation with the Dixiecrats was pretty good. Indeed, Caro singles out the fact that as Majority Leader in the Senate, Johnson assigned the draft Civil Rights Act of 1957 to Sen. Eastland (D-MS, a Dixicrat and a racist), and allowed Eastland to rewrite the bill so extensively as to essentially gut it.

That seems to augur that the "Gang of 14" here would eventually hold their collective noses and vote for Kennedy-Johnson.
 
That seems to augur that the "Gang of 14" here would eventually hold their collective noses and vote for Kennedy-Johnson.
Would they be able to get a promise from Kennedy and Johnson not to support civil rights, or a cabinet post or judicial appointment or something?
 
Although LBJ certainly had powerful personal moral convictions in favor of racial equality, he did a damn good job hiding those until he reached the White House. In Master of the Senate, Caro argues pretty persuasively that as of 1960, LBJ's reputation with the Dixiecrats was pretty good. Indeed, Caro singles out the fact that as Majority Leader in the Senate, Johnson assigned the draft Civil Rights Act of 1957 to Sen. Eastland (D-MS, a Dixicrat and a racist), and allowed Eastland to rewrite the bill so extensively as to essentially gut it.

That seems to augur that the "Gang of 14" here would eventually hold their collective noses and vote for Kennedy-Johnson.
I was going to assume that, but civil rights were such an instrumental part of his legacy - and Kennedy's - that it felt ASB to suggest they could do so.

Then agian, I always like to remember how Jimmy Carter essentially won the Governor's mansion in Georgia by completely bullshitting on race issues.
 
Would they be able to get a promise from Kennedy and Johnson not to support civil rights, or a cabinet post or judicial appointment or something?

An interesting question. I would defer to the Kennedy experts on this board with respect to JFK.

With respect to LBJ: I have no doubt that he would give such a promise, and also no doubt that he wouldn't hesitate to break it the second he assumed the Presidency (if he were to assume said office ITTL).
 
Another possibility if the dixiecrats can't stomach voting for Kennedy is that they send the election to the house, have the Southern Dem delegations in the house vote for Bryd and have the senate vote for Johnson resulting in Johnson becoming (at least acting) President
 
Another possibility if the dixiecrats can't stomach voting for Kennedy is that they send the election to the house, have the Southern Dem delegations in the house vote for Bryd and have the senate vote for Johnson resulting in Johnson becoming (at least acting) President
That is a possibility, they would definitely prefer Johnson to Kennedy.
 
Another possibility if the dixiecrats can't stomach voting for Kennedy is that they send the election to the house, have the Southern Dem delegations in the house vote for Bryd and have the senate vote for Johnson resulting in Johnson becoming (at least acting) President

Yep, such a scenario could end up with LBJ as President, or LBJ successfully pushes JFK to grant him more power in return for winning him the election in the House. LBJ becomes the powerful Deputy President, and is sure to clash with RFK. I could see the cohabitation leading to serious infighting and making the JFK Administration seem inept and out of control. It's not too much out of the question to make it look like JFK is simply controlled by events, poor dear boy, events.
 
The problem with that is Johnson would only be Acting President and the House would have to continue issuing ballots until they finally voted for a winner. Until then you've put a serious hamper on Congress and Johnson still doesn't have the legitimacy of a full President.
 
The problem with that is Johnson would only be Acting President and the House would have to continue issuing ballots until they finally voted for a winner. Until then you've put a serious hamper on Congress and Johnson still doesn't have the legitimacy of a full President.
Johnson would not want to be tainted by even more illegitimacy than OTL. He was haunted by the 1948 race until he exorcized it in 1964. I think it's much more likely he gets the concessions from JFK he wanted IOTL.
 
In 1960, there were 14 unpledged electors, and one faithless elector, from the South who, in OTL, voted for Harry F. Byrd as a protest vote against desegregation. In OTL, it did not matter who they voted for, as Kennedy had enough pledged electors to win the electoral college. However, all it takes is a 0.6% shift in the popular vote...

Actually only 0.3% shift from Kennedy to Nixon. Remember that 1 flipped vote makes a change of 2 votes in the difference. If the vote is A 53 B 47, A wins by 6. Change 1 vote: A 52 B 48, and A only wins by 4.

... nationwide, to give Richard Nixon Hawaii, Illinois, and Missouri. This shift makes the electoral vote 263 for Nixon vs. 260 for Kennedy, with 14 electors unpledged to either candidate. If it comes down to this, which candidate will be able to convince the faithless electors ...

ITYM "unpledged", not "faithless". And that 15th Byrd elector isn't faithless until he has voted.

What do you think would happen?

If there is an 0.6% shift in the popular vote, Nixon wins the PV by 600,000 votes, with a narrow majority, and leads in the EV as well. That will create pressure to elect Nixon. I don't think either ticket would want to deal with the Dixiecrat electors.

If no deal is made, the election goes to the House. The Democrats control 29 delegations, and even a 0.6% swing isn't going to flip many seats - much less enough to flip enough delegations to give the Republicans a majority.

The Democrats could just say that the election was close, the Constitution gives the choice to the House, and then just vote in Kennedy.

However, the Democrat delegations of course include all 11 from the South... so the bargaining could continue. If the Republicans hold out, and several Southern delegations abstain (or vote for Byrd), then Johnson, elected by the Senate, would take office on 20 January. (Note that the Senate gets only two choices, not three.)

Another "however" is that Nixon got a majority of the PV, and it will be argued that the House should honor the majority's wishes. That might be why Republicans refuse to vote in Kennedy.

An outside possibility - Nixon (probably not Kennedy) goes to some of the unpledged electors (he only needs the six from Alabama), and deals for their votes with something not involving civil rights - cotton subsidies, or some big piece of pork. Sleazy, but just ordinary politics, not selling out an important moral issue. I think people would be relieved.

A similar deal in the House would be much harder, as the Republicans control only 17 delegations; they would have to buy 9 Southern delegations somehow.
 
Top