It was going to be a long night. The American people had cast their ballots to elect the
President and the Congress. But by the time the polls closed in California, the outcome
was very much up in the air. The big question mark was, not surprisingly, California. On
the strength of the alternative campaigns of Ross Perot and Ralph Nader, the Golden State
was too close to call. Perot had gotten more votes there this time around and was
hovering around 25 %. Nader had helped complicate things by winning the support of
about 8 % of the electorate in the state. The rest was almost evenly divided between Dole
and Clinton, each polling about 33 % as results continued to report in.
The other big question was Texas. Six million votes had been cast in the Lone Star
State. Perot had garnered a strong showing here, too, of 25 %, but Dole and Clinton were
neck and neck with 37 % going for each. In the all-important electoral vote, Perot had
picked up 49 votes in nine Western and New England states, and while it looked as if Dole
was ahead with 217 to Clinton's 187, the election would hinge on what happened in the
two mega-states. If either of the two were to take both states, he would win election.
Clinton could win both and have 273 electoral votes. Dole would have 303 if he could
carry both.
Just as in 1992, the spoiler role in a large number of states had been played by Perot.
Dole had managed to squeak out victory in Florida, Georgia, Michigan, and Ohio, but
Clinton had slipped by with equally razor thin margins in Pennsylvania, New York, and
Illinois. The same calculus had left California and Texas hanging by a thread. It also was
looking like a very close popular vote division, with both Dole and Clinton coming in at
approximately 39 % each and Perot polling about 22 % of the total vote.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE BREAK-DOWN OF THE 1996 VOTE
DOLE CLINTON PEROT
Alabama 9 Arkansas 6 Maine 4
Arizona 8 DC 3 Idaho 4
Alaska 3 Louisiana 9 Colorado 8
Florida 25 Illinois 22 Connecticut 8
Georgia 13 Hawaii 4 Montana 3
Kansas 6 Maryland 10 Nevada 4
Kentucky 8 Massachusetts 12 Oklahoma 8
Iowa 7 Minnesota 10 Oregon 7
Indiana 12 Missouri 11 Wyoming 3
Delaware 3 New Hampshire 4
Michigan 18 New Mexico 5
Mississippi 7 New York 33
Nebraska 5 Pennsylvania 23
New Jersey 15 Rhode Island 4
North Carolina 14 Tennessee 11
North Dakota 3 Vermont 3
Ohio 21 Washington 11
South Carolina 8 West Virginia 5
South Dakota 3
Utah 5
Virginia 13
Wisconsin 11
____ ____ ____
217 187 49
There seemed a distinct possibility that one or the other of the leading candidates might
win the electoral college but lose the popular vote. That had been a recurrent fear in
American elections. The last time it actually had happened was in 1876 when questions
about whether reconstruction or redeemed votes were to be counted from Florida, South
Carolina, and Louisiana complicated the picture.
It probably also occurred in 1960, but due to the peculiar way the Alabama popular
vote was counted for both Kennedy and Byrd, Kennedy has always been given a slim
margin in votes to match his electoral vote majority. But it has also been a concern in a
number of other elections, most notably in 1912, 1948, and 1968. If it happened now,
there would be a hue and cry for changing the electoral college method of electing our
Presidents. Even without such an outcome, there would still be considerable agitation in
that direction due to the closeness of this contest.
What the commentators and pundits had raised as a possibility, and what was even a
weightier concern for both them and the country in general, was the unthinkable outcome
of the 1996 Presidential race that became apparent only by Thursday, two days after the
election. Most had assumed that the Democratic ticket would carry California. The GOP
had not written it off, however, and, aided by the Perot and Nader vote, they had nearly
pulled it out. In the end, though, Clinton prevailed. But probably in no small part due to
the efforts of Texas Governor, George Bush, the long time trend toward the GOP in
Texas sustained itself enough for Dole to win Texas. As a result of this split, Dole had
won 249 electoral votes to Clinton's 240. Although in the final tally, Clinton had won
39.1 % of the popular vote and that was some 50000 votes more than Dole's 38.9 %,
since neither of them had collected a majority of the electors, neither had won the
Presidency.
The Constitution does not provide for a run-off between the top two vote getters, such
as we saw in Russia in 1996, but it does prescribe a process to elect a President and Vice
President in such a situation. Something of that played itself out in 1876, at least until the
Compromise of 1877. It had, however, fallen to the Congress to perform the task in both
1800 and 1828. Even though the prospect had been discussed as possible in several
elections since then, and most recently in 1968, it had not happened.
The Constitutional procedure is for the House to elect a President from the top three
candidates in electoral votes, and for the Senate to chose a Vice President from the top
two. Although the vote in the upper house is a straight majority decision, the vote in the
House is more problematic. Each state gets one vote and that is determined by a division
of the Congressional delegation in each state. Since there are 50 states, a candidate would
have to get the vote of 26 of the state delegations to be elected. It would be a contest of
nerves and smoke-filled rooms, and there is no guarantee that anyone can prevail.
The tidal wave for the GOP in 1994 which had swept them into control of the
Congress for the first time in 40 years, and only the third time since 1930, had been a
cresting of a wave that had first manifest itself two years earlier in 1992. Even though
Clinton 'won' the White House, Republicans picked up seats in both Houses. Now, in
1996, the general Republican trend continued if at an altered pace. The 105th Congress
would seat only 50 Republican Senators (three less than the 104th). The division in the
House gave the GOP some twenty-five new seats, 257 to the 178 Democrats. Newt
Gingrich would serve a second term as Speaker. It might even be possible for a
Republican Vice President to be elected to serve during a second Clinton term as
President, or vice versa.
Of the fifty state delegations in the 105th House, ten were evenly divided. These would
be ripe for back room deals in the event that the election was in doubt. But so, too, might
the several states where one party held a slim edge -- especially since there was the option
of voting for Perot. Democrats were in control of 16 states, and with 26 needed for
election, only 24 state delegations were in GOP hands.
PARTISAN MAKE UP OF THE 105TH HOUSE STATE DELEGATIONS
REPUBLICAN DEMOCRAT
Alabama 3 4
Alaska 1 0
Arizona 5 1
Arkansas 2 2
California 26 26
Colorado 5 1
Connecticut 3 3
Delaware 1 0
Florida 16 7
Georgia 8 3
Hawaii 0 2
Idaho 1 1
Illinois 10 10
Indiana 8 2
Iowa 5 0
Kansas 4 0
Kentucky 5 1
Louisiana 4 3
Maine 1 1
Maryland 4 4
Massachusetts 2 8
Michigan 8 8
Minnesota 2 6
Mississippi 2 3
Missouri 3 6
Montana 1 0
Nebraska 3 0
Nevada 1 1
New Hampshire 2 0
New Jersey 8 5
New Mexico 1 2
New York 15 16
North Carolina 10 2
North Dakota 0 1
Ohio 15 4
Oklahoma 5 1
Oregon 3 2
Pennsylvania 10 11
Rhode Island 0 2
South Carolina 4 2
South Dakota 1 0
Tennessee 6 3
Texas 15 15
Utah 1 2
Vermont 0 1
Virginia 5 6
Washington 6 3
West Virginia 0 3
Wisconsin 6 3
Wyoming 1 0
PARTISAN CONTROL OF HOUSE STATE DELEGATIONS
REPUBLICAN SPLIT DEMOCRAT
Alaska Arkansas Alabama
Arizona California Hawaii
Colorado Connecticut Massachusetts
Delaware Idaho Minnesota
Florida Illinois Mississippi
Georgia Maine Missouri
Indiana Maryland New York
Iowa Michigan New Mexico
Kansas Nevada North Dakota
Kentucky Texas Pennsylvania
Louisiana Rhode Island
Montana South Carolina
Nebraska Utah
New Hampshire Vermont
New Jersey Virginia
North Carolina West Virginia
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
South Dakota
Tennessee
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
24 10 16
The possibility that Representatives of either party might vote for Perot and not their
party's candidate in states Perot had carried offered little prospect of helping Dole. If
anything, such action in a few states might give the edge in them to Clinton. But he would
need ten additional states to win, a rather tall order. And if it came down to a Republican
voting for Perot and giving that state's vote to Clinton as a result, they would be difficult
to find. That would be even more the case were Clinton to pick up some of the split
delegations in some manner. At the same time, Dole would need only two additional
states. Especially in some of the big states, there might be possibilities, even if some
members abstained from voting, having been offered a deal they couldn't refuse.
Not unexpectedly, however, the first vote in the House was strictly along party lines.
Dole picked up 24 votes, two short of victory, ten states were evenly split, and Clinton
carried 16 delegations.
FIRST BALLOT IN THE HOUSE
DOLE 24
CLINTON 16
SPLIT 10
On the second ballot, the Perot factor made itself felt. In Idaho, Connecticut, Texas,
Maine, and Nevada, one Republican in each cast their vote for the Texas billionaire. Since
the Democrats in each of them held the line for Clinton, he picked up more states. And
when a similar voting pattern appeared in Oregon and Louisiana, the delegations in those
were left deadlocked.
SECOND BALLOT
DOLE 24
CLINTON 21
SPLIT 7
And a third division of the House on that first day of balloting cost Clinton one vote to
Perot in California, New York, and Pennsylvania, while the others held as they had on the
second count. California therefore gave its vote to Dole, while the other two were left at
loggerheads.
THIRD BALLOT
DOLE 23
CLINTON 19
SPLIT 9
This was high suspense and the proceedings were broadcast live to a nation locked
onto the tube. The Senate had determined to forego its voting until the next day in
deference to the Presidential vote in the House. But a weary House adjourned after three
ballots until the next day.
Uneasiness had turned to near panic on Wall Street. The Dow, in a slide since mid-
summer, was dove-tailing beyond the 'correction' it was supposed to be with worries that
it might plummet as the Congress prepared to vote again the next day.
The House leadership had decided that they would wait to convene to vote until after
the Senate met in the morning to ballot for Vice President. But when they met at ten, each
of the Senators had announced how they intended to vote, and not surprisingly, it was
strictly along party lines. But with fifty Democrats and fifty Republicans, there would be a
tie vote expected. That would mean that the sitting Vice President, Al Gore, acting as
President of the Senate, could vote for himself to break the tie, and thus re-elect himself.
Since his term did not expire until January 20th, still two weeks away, he found himself in
that unique position. He had been in a similar predicament early in the Clinton
Administration when he had the opportunity to vote to break a tie in Senate two different
times to pass the largest tax increase in U.S. history. As then, there was little question as
to how he would vote.
Whatever efforts were made behind the scenes, it all proved a wash. And fairly certain
that the tie would ensue, Gore called the body to order and began the process which
seemed headed for him to re-elect himself. But there was one thing the Republicans could
do and Trent Lott was prepared to do it. He took the floor and began to speak. Especially
given the situation in the House which was trying to elect a President, but where there had
been loggerheads, the Senate's election of a Vice President was all the more critical. If it
was to choose someone, and the House stumbled along unable to come to any decision,
on January 20th, that Vice President they had selected would become President. For that
reason, and since it was not only obvious what the Democrats would do, but Gore's voting
to elect himself being of questionable propriety in his assessment, the Republicans in the
Senate were prepared to block such a vote by the chamber at least until the House had
been able to reach some decision. They were going to filibuster, and there was no way
they could be stopped. There is a procedure for ending a delay, but cloture would require
the support of sixty Senators, and there would not be enough Democrats to invoke it.
The press was, of course, predictably livid. Lott had said that they were prepared for
whatever the media dished out, and were not going to be intimidated. Here were these
obstructionist Republicans, they were saying, interjecting their partisan games into a
difficult situation which would soon become a crisis. By the time that Gingrich called the
House to order at one in the afternoon, the filibuster was two hours old. Lott still had the
floor. Even when coverage shifted to the House chamber, the bulk of the commentary was
about the attempted Republican coup. It now took a new turn. This was a coup attempt,
indeed. The man calling the House to order, Newt Gingrich, as Speaker, was next in line
of succession behind the Vice President. He was engineering the farce so that when no
decision had been made by the 20th on electing either a President or Vice President, he
could take over the Presidency.
In fact, Newt did not want that to happen. If it came down to that, he would have to
resign the Speaker's post and his seat in Congress to become what in all likelihood would
be an Acting President, a position which could end immediately if the House or Senate
were able to make a choice at any time -- hardly an enviable position.
There might be some legalities involved there which could alter that, but they would
end up in court. We might even experience two claimants to the Presidency simultaneously
-- for instance, Gingrich as Acting President and Gore as (eventually) the Senate-elected
VP, if that ever came about. Would Gingrich then be replaced by Gore? Or, once he was
in the White House, would he be there for the entire four year term?
Continue
