US Election tied-House of Representatives may have to intervene

Mein Gott! I kinda want this to happen. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out
 
Yalkan:
Mein Gott! I kinda want this to happen. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out
Click to expand...
This is a highly unlikely scenario, especially this election cycle. There is talk about this every four years, but it's just a titillating fantasy. Far more likely is that hackers will purge the list of registered voters.
 
A 0.15% chance huh...that fine print makes the entire premise of the article pretty moot in my book. Any election that goes to the House is just going to make Americans even angrier about the process. Honestly, just scrap the Electoral College, if states are going to pretend that our popular vote matters and 99% of the time award their EVs based on it, we might as well make it official.
 
Pallaith:
A 0.15% chance huh...that fine print makes the entire premise of the article pretty moot in my book. Any election that goes to the House is just going to make Americans even angrier about the process. Honestly, just scrap the Electoral College, if states are going to pretend that our popular vote matters and 99% of the time award their EVs based on it, we might as well make it official.
Click to expand...
Basically this.
 
Pallaith:
A 0.15% chance huh...that fine print makes the entire premise of the article pretty moot in my book. Any election that goes to the House is just going to make Americans even angrier about the process. Honestly, just scrap the Electoral College, if states are going to pretend that our popular vote matters and 99% of the time award their EVs based on it, we might as well make it official.
Click to expand...
The only way that'll happen (whether by removing it completely or just rendering it ineffective, a la National Popular Vote Compact) is if a Republican wins the popular vote, and loses the EC. They haven't shown any signs of agreeing to any changes so far.

It's a possibility, and it would be a pretty sad day for democracy if that happens. However, the amount of time we spend for a 1-in-200 likelihood (according to 538) is clearly disproportionate. Perhaps we should be far more worried about the prospects of either side getting the EC win while losing the popular vote - something like ~8% according to 538, which is far higher than 1%. While I have my qualms about 538's model -- I think that the polls-only forecast is too 'bouncy', while the predictive power of polls-plus' fundamentals is somewhat dubious in many states -- I think that's a good estimate. (That's not a pot-shot at 538, I think constructing an predictive electoral model is a really tough gig.)
 
mcmasterdonia:
People have watched too many political TV shows. This will not happen.
Click to expand...
Wasn't this scenario in an episode of Veep?
 
Unimaginable Doom:
Wasn't this scenario in an episode of Veep?
Click to expand...
An entire season was based on this scenario. Such a scenario favors the republicans given the greater number of "red" states compared to "blue," not to mention that the GOP has in many blue states a greater number of House members than the democrats. I also appreciate that shout out to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, I've been following that for about 6 years now and I'm all for it. Don't expect to see any red states sign it though.
 
Guy:
Pallaith:
A 0.15% chance huh...that fine print makes the entire premise of the article pretty moot in my book. Any election that goes to the House is just going to make Americans even angrier about the process. Honestly, just scrap the Electoral College, if states are going to pretend that our popular vote matters and 99% of the time award their EVs based on it, we might as well make it official.
Click to expand...
The only way that'll happen (whether by removing it completely or just rendering it ineffective, a la National Popular Vote Compact) is if a Republican wins the popular vote, and loses the EC. They haven't shown any signs of agreeing to any changes so far.

It's a possibility, and it would be a pretty sad day for democracy if that happens. However, the amount of time we spend for a 1-in-200 likelihood (according to 538) is clearly disproportionate. Perhaps we should be far more worried about the prospects of either side getting the EC win while losing the popular vote - something like ~8% according to 538, which is far higher than 1%. While I have my qualms about 538's model -- I think that the polls-only forecast is too 'bouncy', while the predictive power of polls-plus' fundamentals is somewhat dubious in many states -- I think that's a good estimate. (That's not a pot-shot at 538, I think constructing an predictive electoral model is a really tough gig.)
Click to expand...
I have to agree that this is a small chance outcome. However, Nate Silver has miscalculated before(he Predicted that Trump only had 2% chance of being the GOP nominee, yet here we are looking at the possibility that Trump might just win. Silver later admits that he acted like a pundit, so that's likely why he isn't readily dismissing that small number(Still more than 0%).

I also agree that a polls only model is too simple as there are other factors at play.

This Professor Predicts that Trump has an 97% to 99%. Here's his model for a further details. This one also predicts a Trump Victory, though that one is a little more skeptical, especially after Trump's loss at the last Debate. This professor predicts 90.3% chance of Hillary.

The long form model I've been using suggests that Hillary is slightly ahead, but her lead is shaky(all those Angry Bernie supporters)-not to mention Gary Johnson seems to be doing more damage to Clinton than Trump is doing. The problem is that both candidates are hated and so it comes down to vote between "Never Clinton" and "Never Trump" with the Never Clinton folks actually being more important than the Never Trump folks. Gary Johnson represents "Never Trump and Clinton" but comes across as a Foreign Affairs Greenhorn, though Economists like him. Jill Stein is mainly collecting Angry Bernie Supporters, but comes across as a Utopian Idealist. Here's a pic of the overall election situation

Facebook-Trump-vs-Clinton-0e1cf6.png


There's also a bunch of other candidates if you want to check them out, but they're not going to get anymore than a few thousand votes I suspect. I heard that an individual named "God" was running and I checked the Federal Election Commission and Satan is also running for office as a Republican no less, so you can try voting for one of them, though I don't think either one of those candidates are eligible because they're not US citizens-US law has no Jurisdiction over either of them.

We'll have to wait and see what happens after the next debate, but one thing I think we can all agree on is that this election is an alright mess.
 
Predicting whether someone's lead will sustain itself months in advance in a personality-based Primary requires punditry, not electoral analysis. Silver might not be the Demi-God some make him out to be, but it's unfair to use the Trump thing against him.

Presidential elections are inherently extremely predictable. There are red states and blue states, a lot of public polling, other noticeable factors (campaign movements), and so on. The models and markets are ultimately in agreement - Clinton is somewhere between a 73-85% favourite at this stage. A fundamentals-based forecast that predicts Trump at 90% is just trying to say "I told you so" if he ends up winning.

The anti-Clinton/Trump vote is also overestimated. Most poll respondents say their vote is for that candidate. With a few exceptions, most voters we are seeing as the very same reliable Romney/Obama votes -- the Republican and Democratic base.

Sure, for the middle voter, it might be an issue of "who do I hate more". But don't overestimate their numbers.
 
Question- if this were to happen would this be the House of Representatives for the next term or still the one for the 2012-16 term?
 
Syrixia:
Question- if this were to happen would this be the House of Representatives for the next term or still the one for the 2012-16 term?
Click to expand...
Next term.

Under Section 2 of Amendment XX:
Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
Click to expand...
This indicates that the new Congress begins on 3 January. That date is confirmed by statute (2 USC 1):
At the regular election held in any State next preceding the expiration of the term for which any Senator was elected to represent such State in Congress, at which election a Representative to Congress is regularly by law to be chosen, a United States Senator from said State shall be elected by the people thereof for the term commencing on the 3d day of January next thereafter.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, the electoral votes are counted on 6 January, under 3 USC 15 (too long to reproduce here).

Keep in mind that each state's delegation to the House gets one vote. Whether it's the old or the new, Republicans will almost certainly have a clear majority.
 
I'm not being unfair to him(he has indeed predicted elections rather accurately, and I do take his opinion worth consideration-I wouldn't post him otherwise), just citing a fact,(he did get that Primary wrong, which is why I figure he hasn't automatically dismissed that Tie possibility). You're also being unfair to Norpoth whose model has postdicted every election(save the 1960 one) for last 104 years and he did get the Primary election right.

If I were to do a straight up readout of my own short form statistics(and given if the inputs are accurate-I may have to break up "General Voters" into further cohorts), it actually agrees with Nate Silver and Bueno de Mesquita in predicting that Hillary will win. There is a potential monkey wrench possible though. This article partially describes the Monkey wrench. In my formula, the tie is more likely than Trump outright winning and if Clinton loses ground that's what is likely to happen which will result in President Trump. Overall I think that Clinton will win the popular vote either way. I'll re-do the list of players and calculate a long form spreadsheet based on that to see what that reveals later on.

There are also other ways to tie the election than the Johnson gets New Mexico method-say that Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, and Iowa, for some reason decides to vote Trump and it ends up 269 vs 269.

You also assume that anti-Clinton=Pro Trump when this is far from the truth. I know many Anti-Clinton people that can't stand Trump either(though I know one GOP person that is begrudgingly voting for Clinton because he's terrified that Trump is Hitler reincarnated). It is true there are the basic Democrat and GOP Blocs that always vote for their party regardless of who it is, there is indeed that middle group that can determine the winner. They may not be the most numerous, they do have to be sizable enough to tip it one way or the other. Consider that less than 10% actually picked the respective nominees.

Now considering how this election has been, I personally figure(note: no statistics for this part: this is just a 'guaranteed and most definitely serious good guess' mhm it's totally believable-sarcasm) is that it will get tied, goes to House of Representatives: gets deadlocked so lobbying happens with the congressmen holding the election hostage. After 6 weeks the president publicly states "just pick one, already", so Joseph "Joe Exotic" Maldonado is chosen as President, Trump and Clinton demand "recount!" media calls it "Congressgate", Goes to the Supreme Court, Supreme Court tries to kick it back(because they don't have a full bench). HOR kicks it back to the Supreme Court, who then gets a tied ruling. Finally an Army of Mounties seizes the opportunity and annexes the US, citing out of nowhere that the US is still a Crown Colony and the former British Prime Minister proclaims victory over the Yanks and that Brexit was part of the Grand Plan all along and just in time for a Merry Christmas! :rum:
 
There is no way that a tie is more likely than a Trump win. There are simply very few combination of results that lead to a tie. See this from the Times, for example (obviously you would have to weight each scenario by its likelihood, but 315 vs 16 is pretty resounding.)
 
Well as the Zen Master said "we'll see" The election is only a month away. Based on your formula a tie is indeed less likely(and using a Z test on mine also says same thing), however The tie is closer to the "Hillary Win" position because it doesn't take as much to move the outcome result to the tie spot than to the "Trump Win" position. One possible flaw in my formula perhaps is that it doesn't take into account how the states themselves will vote(it focuses on cohorts like Bernie supporters, Swing voters, Dems, GOP, etc. So it should deal with the population mechanics simply enough). I'll redo my numbers to fix such issues and see what it yields. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump wins the election but loses the Popular vote.

Another possibility that no-one's considering(even me) that can happen is Tim Kaine(or Pence) becomes President after Election Day(Trump has discussed violence and I wouldn't put it past his supporters to assassinate Hillary Clinton if she wins. Could also happen to Trump too.) Wonder what the odds of those scenarios are?
 
You know what bothers me the most about the 2016 Presidential Election?


One of the candidates will win.
 
I think we can safely assume the election won't be tied now, with the list of people lining up to condemn Trump ranging from his wife and his running mate to Tic Tacs and the fucking Terminator.
 
St George:
I think we can safely assume the election won't be tied now, with the list of people lining up to condemn Trump ranging from his wife and his running mate to Tic Tacs and the fucking Terminator.
Click to expand...
Yeah I have to agree with that, Who knew that would happen? My model can't predict sudden things like that or meteor strikes(just forecast the political aftereffects). Well my model did Predict that the Hillary win was more likely than a tie(barely), though should be by a significantly larger margin by now(initially it was only like 2 points).
 
I mean it was fairly obvious Hillary would win anyway - Trump has spent the last 15 months alienating every demographic that could conceivably deliver him the White House, the only question was how much by Hillary win by. Originally it was probably 2012 levels, now we're looking at a repeat of 1980 or even 1984 levels.
 
It will be a wonderful day when the results start rolling in and Trump realises he has even managed to lose traditionally GOP states. I just hope that this will be reflected in Congress, but that seems unlikely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top