Election close. What if there's a tie?

I was amazed a day or two ago to see some some news program with "experts" who, when the subject of a tie vote in the electoral college came up, had no clue what to say.

Fortunately, the constitution is better prepared. As the better students in the class will recall, a tie vote in the electoral college (it has only happened once - 1800) is decided in the US House of Representatives. This is a special case of the general provision that a winner must receive a majority of the total number of electors. It couldn't happern if the vote (and three electoral votes) had not been given to DC by the 23rd Amendment in 1961, or if Congress had changed the number of House members to an even number; but the specter of a deadlocked vote for speaker was probably considered a greater danger. Other than 1800, the choice of president has only been decided in the House due to no candidate having a majority one time (1824). In 1876, both candidates had majorities since there were contested races and competing sets of electors meeting in four states. This led to an extra-constitutional proceeding brokered by the Chief Justice in which a joint session of Congress awarded the presidency and vice presidency to the losing candidates in exchange for a promise that the Republicans would stop using the Army to steal elections in the future. Thus, the centennial of our independence was celebrated by having another coup d'etat.

Anyway, if the electoral college vote is tied this year, Bush wins. Each state's House delegation gets to cast one vote and if the make-up is the same as today and all members follow party lines, the vote goes Bush 30, Kerry 16, Not voting (tie votes in caucus) 4. Texas, currently tied, is expected to shift up to five seats from Democrat to Republican due to a new redistricting scheme which is being challenged in court; so Bush should be able to carry 31 states in the House. There will be substantial pressure brought to bear on members whose districts were carried by the other party to cross over if there are enough such districts in a state to shift its vote, but it would be very hard to shake loose enough Republicans to make this work for Kerry.

Consider my state, Pennsylvania. It is likely to go for Kerry due to huge Democrat majorities in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and some smaller cities. But the rural areas are solidly Republican and so are most of the suburban areas and small towns. The congressional delegation is currently Republican by a margin of 12 to 7. To get Pennsylvania's one vote, Democrats would have to get 3 Republicans to break ranks.

Connecticut, Illinois, New Mexico and North Carolina, however would shift from R to D if one Republican crosses over. In addition to Texas, the other tied delegations are Minnesota, Mississippi and Wisconsin. Kentucky, New Hampshire and South Carolina would go from Bush to tied if one Republican caves, But there aren't likely to be any GOP congressmen whose districts are carried by Kerry in those states.

The danger is really in suburban districts represented by moderate Republicans. But there would have to be assurances not only that their switches would make the difference in the presidential balloting, but that they could cross the aisle and tip the House to the Democrats and keep their committee and subcommittee chairmanships. If the Republicans were to still have a House majority without the renegades, they would be thrown out of the GOP caucus and the party would make sure they lost any future Republican primary. This would make the ruckus over Sen. Jeffords' betrayal pale by comparison.

Just remember, we only need 269, Kerry is the one who has to get 270 electoral votes.