Despite winning both the popular vote, aswell as a plurality of the Electoral vote, Winfield Scott was cut off from a majority by independent federalist Roger Taney, who had done well in New England and got an electoral vote in Maryland. Scottβs lack of a majority would lead to the 12th amendment being put into action.
Fortunately for Scott, Henry Clay met with the rest of congress to propose a compromise in which he would be voted in as Vice President by the senate if he sponsored Scott in the house. Clayβs plan would be successful, although he would be leaving behind his own presidential nominee John Calhoun and Scott would be leaving, Daniel Webster.
Scott and Clay would form a new party going by the name of the βNational Republicans,β who support Clayβs American system.
Unfortunately for Scott, the Democratic-Republicans would hold both houses after the 1824-25 midterms
https://preview.redd.it/36yxhmlc5cq71.png?width=668&format=png&auto=webp&s=b0ed91c871392d11401695d401515fb2a8163d3e
https://preview.redd.it/t5dqh6ld5cq71.png?width=965&format=png&auto=webp&s=7514a9dd82750ed11135c80d27e7d0879b44d540
WRITE DOWN A PROPOSAL FOR SCOTT"S TERM< TOP UPVOTED BECOMES CANON, please be semi-realistic.
The 1988 Election saw the death of President Trump and the ascension of Joe Biden to the Presidency, but the matter of a Vice Presidential Candidate is unresolved. Two candidates, both Democrats, advance to a contingent election for the Vice Presidency, the second of itβs kind.
The First and leading Candidate is Bill Clinton, Governor of Arkansas. He is a generally moderate man from the South, but in the wake of the Trumpian Shift to the left, he has followed in itβs wake.
The Second is Ed Markey, Senator of Massachusetts. He is the more Liberal candidate, but overall is rather similar to Governor Clinton, even only being born a little over a month apart in 1946, like President Trump.
When I say indefensible here, I mean that in a strong sense that there is no coherent and internally consistent argument to be made for it that follows from any principle of good government. Literally any consistent and coherent argument for the contingent election system will change m view.
So what is the contingent election system? It is the system established for picking the President if and when the Electoral College fails to do so. It has been used twice, once in 1800 and once in 1836 1824. The contingent election charges the House with picking the President, and the Senate with picking the Vice President. The House picks among the top 3 electoral vote winners, with each state getting one vote, and an absolute majority of states being required to win. The Senate picks among the top 2 electoral vote winners for VP, with each Senator getting one vote.
So why do I think this system is indefensible?
-
It is designed in a way that is likely to deadlock, with no clear resolution mechanism. A three way vote with an absolute majority required to win is a disaster. Add on top of that the fact that the number of states is even, and that a state's House delegation could easily tie among its own members, and it is likely that in a contingent election, no candidate will win. This happened in 1800 for 35 ballots, where they just kept voting over and over and over again til someone switched.
-
One-state-one-vote makes no sense as a system of picking a President. The electoral college is supposed to weight states at least substantially by population in their President-picking power. Then when we get to contingent elections, we toss that out and just have it be all states as equals, both for President and VP? What's the reason to switch to such an anti-democratic system?
Edit: I got the year wrong for the second contingent election. It was 1824, not 1836.
I understand the process of representatives from each state choosing a delegate, and then the 50 delegates going for a simple majority, but is it the House elected 2 years before, or the newly elected house that votes?
