Like many other Americans, I’ve been thinking that a strong third party party candidate for president would be a good development given the likely unappealing choices offered by the two major parties. After a bit of research, however, I’ve come to a very different conclusion. A strong third party choice in 2012 could well prove an absolute, utter disaster for this country.
In 1992 Ross Perot garnered almost 19 percent of the popular vote. Because of our strange electoral system, he nonetheless received no electoral votes. Bill Clinton, with less than 50 percent of the popular vote, easily ended with more than the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.
In 1992, polls were showing that just a bit more than 30 percent of the voting public was dissatisfied with the way government was running and the people running it. Polls today are showing more than 80 percent feel that way. So…
So it’s possible, indeed likely, that a popular third party entrant in the 2012 presidential sweepstakes might actually garner some electoral votes by winning pluralities in some winner-take-all states. Not enough to pass the magic 270 needed to get elected. But enough to keep either of the two major party contenders from reaching the 270 winning line.
What happens then? You may have heard that in that case the selection of a president is made in the House of Representatives. It is, but not in the way you may think. Here’s how it would happen according to a government website: “If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each State delegation has one vote.”
Focus on that last sentence. The Republicans currently have a lopsided majority in the House. That majority doesn’t matter here, however. Each state delegation has one vote here, tiny Rhode Island has the same electoral power as California or Texas.
Do Democrats control a majority of state delegations by the number of reps from every state? Do Republicans? It may not matter because the law doesn’t say exactly that this is how each delegation must vote. Maybe state delegations will be guided by the governor of that state. Maybe reps who lost the election of 2012 and won’t be serving in the next sedsion of congress will not feel bound to vote for the candidate of their own party. Maybe the third party candidate got a plurality in some states and their reps feel bound to back this person. Maybe…maybe…maybe…
Suppose the House can’t muster a majority (26 state delegations) to select a president because a spirit of needed compromise is absent. (Would that surprise you?) Who gets to select a president (and vice-president) then?
The Senate. Here’s the way this is explained on a government site: “The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. [And] If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.”
So maybe you could end up with a Republican president chosen by the House and a Democratic vice-president chosen by the Senate. A veep who could cast the deciding vote if the Senate is a 50-50 tie, which could well be the outcome of the coming election. And who says a supposedly Democrat-controlled Senate would chose a Democratic president anyway. Joe Lieberman and a few other Democratic senators who aren’t up for reelection may have other ideas. You want your next president selected by Joe?
Remember also, that no matter how any of this plays out, no matter who is chosen for what post, there will be law suits by losers that end up in the Supreme Court. And wouldn’t that be fun to go through again.
It worth keeping in mind here the likely state of the U.S. government and economy going into the 2012 elections. The government is paralyzed over spending and taxing issues that the next election (we are told) is supposed to resolve.
Resolved by the 2012 election? As the above suggests, this election could make present dysfunction and crippling partisanship look like a group hug.
So I’m offering a personal retraction here. I’ve been calling for a strong third party candidate for the 21012 presidential race to emerge. Indeed, there’s an online campaign shaping up that in fact may make this happen, even without such a candidate emerging the usual way.
Please, please, please don’t let this happen. Obama isn’t a very good president. The Republican alternative is likely to be an even worse option. But a third party candidate who wins enough electoral votes to keep ether of these poor offerings from our two major parties from getting the magic 270 electoral votes, opens possibilities our system may not be able to recover from for decades..
More from this writer at wallstreetpoet.com