Another Way To Elect A President: Contingent Elections (Part 8)
Nov 2, 2020
auto_awesome
Exploring the rare House contingent election, the discussion dives into its historical roots and what could trigger it today. It examines the intricacies of the electoral system and the implications of achieving majority rule. The complexities of political legitimacy amid bribery and negotiations are highlighted, along with the significant roles of the president and vice president in such scenarios. With reflections on potential reforms, the conversation emphasizes the evolving nature of democracy and electoral integrity.
The historical occurrences of contingent elections in 1800 and 1824 underscore the complexities and potential pitfalls of the U.S. Electoral College system.
The framers of the Constitution intended contingent elections to ensure majority support, yet modern two-party dynamics have complicated their original concerns about representation.
Current discussions about electoral reforms, like ranked-choice voting, highlight a broader commitment to maintaining democratic integrity and addressing the implications of potential contingent elections.
Deep dives
Historical Precedents of Contingent Elections
The potential for a president to be elected without a majority of the Electoral College is a rare occurrence in U.S. history, having only happened twice: in 1800 and 1824. In 1800, a tie between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr forced the House of Representatives to decide who would be president, demonstrating the complexities of the Electoral College system. The 1824 election saw Andrew Jackson winning the popular vote but lacking a majority in the Electoral College, which again led to a contingent election in the House. These historical precedents highlight the unusual and potentially problematic nature of how the presidency can be determined when no single candidate achieves a majority of Electoral College votes.
Constitutional Structure and the 12th Amendment
The 12th Amendment, which was ratified in 1804, aimed to address issues with the original Electoral College system. It was a response to the somewhat chaotic outcome of the 1800 election, but it left certain elements intact, such as the contingency procedure for electing a president if no majority is reached. The framers of the Constitution created a complex system where each state gets one vote in the House, combining elements of both the Senate and House representation. This compromise was meant to balance state rights and the need for a majority voice, but the consequences of this dual approach have contributed to political fragmentation over time.
The Philosophical Motivations Behind the Electoral System
The framers of the Constitution were deeply concerned about the dynamics of majority rule versus plurality, worried that a candidate could win without broad-based support. They envisioned the contingent election as a safeguard to ensure a majority was achieved, similar to runoff elections seen in some states. Their intent was to avoid the pitfalls of factionalism and to create a system that fostered consensus. However, the emergence of a stable two-party system led to unintended consequences, leaving the framers' original concerns regarding majority representation largely unaddressed, especially in the context of today’s hyper-partisan environment.
The Contingent Election Process
In a scenario where no candidate receives a majority of Electoral College votes, the contingent election mechanism outlined in the Constitution comes into play, allowing the House of Representatives to elect the president. Each state delegation in the House has a single vote, creating the potential for deadlocks if delegations split along party lines. This situation could lead to intense negotiations reminiscent of past elections, such as 1800 and 1824, where vote trading and compromises were necessary to break ties. The process raises concerns about the legitimacy and fairness of the election outcome, as it could lead to accusations of corruption or lack of democratic integrity.
Imagining Future Implications and Reforms
Contingent elections are not just historical artifacts but have significant implications for future presidential elections, especially with the potential for closely contested outcomes. The system's design could spur calls for reform, such as ranked-choice voting, to ensure majority winners and reduce the need for contingent elections. Current dynamics suggest that the legitimacy of future elections could come under scrutiny if processes yielding unexpected outcomes are seen as anti-democratic. The conversation around these reforms reflects a broader concern for maintaining the integrity of the electoral process and preventing the realization of a contentious contingent election in the future.
In today's episode of the mini-series, we discuss the House contingent election. It hasn't happened since 1824, but could it this year? What could trigger it? And what would happen if the House has to choose the President?
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
