A deeper dive into what would happen if no one gets a majority in the Electoral College

OK, I hope and pray that this will not happen.  Every chance I get, I have been phone banking for the Clinton Campaign.  While she has her flaws, I strongly believe she would make a good President -- and is far better on every issue than Trump/Pence: Climate change, economic equity, women's reproductive rights, LGBT rights, for example.  Trump, on the other hand, has proven to be a dangerous, amoral or immoral demagogue; and Pence's strongly-held policy views are an anathema to every piece of progress our society has made in the last 80 years.

Hillary Clinton is most likely to win on November 8.  Still, recent polling indicates that there could be a tie in the Electoral College or, if Evan McMullen carries Utah, that no one would win a majority (see here ).  Last March, I laid out a scenario of what would happen if no candidate secured a majority of the Electoral College votes and the presidential election went to the House.  See here.    So it is time to take a deeper dive into that subject.

Under the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, if no one gets a majority in the Electoral College, selection of the President goes to the House of Representatives and selection of the Vice President goes to the Senate.  The House chooses among the top three Electoral College vote-getters; the Senate chooses among the top two. 

To be elected president in the House of Representatives, a candidate (who must be in the top three in the Electoral College) needs a majority of the 50 state delegations.  Assuming no change in the balance of the state delegations following the November 8 election, the Republicans will have a majority in 30 delegations.  See here  Of those delegations, nine have an even number.  If five of those delegations deadlock, then the House cannot select a president.  Why would that happen?  Because some Republican members of Congress from those states might prefer to stop Trump in the House and leave it to a Republican-majority Senate to choose Mike Pence as Vice President – and, therefore, Acting President under the 12^th Amendment.  (Of course, if the Democrats take back the Senate, then the dynamic obviously would be different.)

It should also be noted that of the 30 delegations presently majority Republican, Colorado is 4-3 Republican and Wisconsin is 5-3 Republican.  A flip in one seat in each state in the upcoming election would reduce the number of majority Republican delegations to 28.  That would mean that only three state delegations would have to deadlock to effectively throw the Presidency to whoever is elected Vice President in the Senate.

 Again, I hope and pray that it does not come to this.  Either a Trump or a Pence Presidency would be a disaster, each in its own ways. 

3,000 Year Old Warning From the First Book of Samuel Pertinent to Us Today

BUT SHOULD WE?

          I am a member of the Temple Emanuel Board of Trustees.  We open each Board meeting with a D'var Torah, typically a reading of a biblical passage followed by an interpretation of it.  Last night's meeting was the last one before the 2016 election.  I was asked to do the D'var Torah.  So I thought some passage or passages relating to leadership might be appropriate.

          So, initially,  I thought I would discuss the strengths and weakness of Israel’s famous kings: Saul, David, and Solomon.  I started my research with the First Book of Samuel, in which Samuel is instructed by the Lord to pick a king for Israel.  But in reading Chapter 8 of that book, I was struck by the biblical report of what led up to the decision to appoint a king, so I based my D'var Torah on Chapter 8 of the First Book of Samuel.  I presented the following: 

           Remember that in the years after the return of the Israelites to the “promised land” the Jewish tribes were loosely held together by judges who would adjudicate disputes among the people and would rally the people when threatened by other, non-Jewish, tribes in the region.  Samuel was the last of the great judges.

           In the era of the judges, the Jewish people seemed to have essentially governed themselves, trying to act in accordance with the rules handed down by Moses. Much, I suppose, like the U.S. Constitution, which are the rules by which we, as Americans, govern ourselves.  Israel of the judges was a self-governed society based on a set of principles.

          But Samuel grew old, and his sons who began to serve as judges proved inadequate,   

"4 [So] All the elders of Israel . . . came to Samuel . . .

"5 And they said to him: 'You have grown old, and your sons have not followed your ways. Therefore appoint a king for us, to govern us like all other nations.'

"6 Samuel was displeased that they said, 'Give us a king to govern us.' Samuel prayed to the Lord.

"7 And the Lord replied to Samuel: Heed the demand of the people in everything they say to you. For it is not you they have rejected; it is Me they have rejected as their king. . . . , 

"8 forsaking Me and worshipping other gods. . . . 

"9 Heed their demand; but warn them solemnly, and tell them about the practices of any king who will rule over them.'

"10 And Samuel reported all the words of the Lord to the people, who were asking him for a king.

"11 He said: 'This will be the practice of the king who will rule over you: he will take your sons, and appoint them as his charioteers and horsemen, and they will serve as outrunners for his chariots.

"12  . . . .  or they will have to plow his fields, reap his harvest, and make his weapons and the equipment for his chariots.

"13 He will take your daughters as perfumers, cooks, and bakers.

"14 He will seize your choice fields, vineyards, and olive groves, and give them to his courtiers.

"15 He will take a tenth part of your grain and vintage and give it to his . . .  courtiers. . . . 

"17 He will take a tenth part of your flocks; and you shall become his slaves.  

"18 The day will come when you cry out because of the king whom you yourselves have chosen; and the Lord will not answer you on that day.

"19 But the people would not listen to Samuel’s warning. ‘No,’ they said. ‘We must have a king over us,

"20 that we also may be like all the nations: Let our king rule over us and go out at our head and fight our battles.’

"21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he reported it to the Lord.

"22 And the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Heed their demands and appoint a king for them.’ "

 [When I read this passage, I emphasized the words I bolded and underlined above, and gave a big sigh before the phrase in Verse 22, "Heed their demands. . . . " in order to demonstrate my interpretation.]

          So Saul was appointed King of Israel.  With mixed results.  And, following a civil war, David became king; with better, but still decidedly mixed results. Then David’s son Solomon became king, with reportedly excellent results while he lived, but upon his death, the central government collapsed, Israel was divided into two countries. The northern tribes were conquered and the inhabitants dispatched to who knows where.  The southern kingdom limped along until it was conquered by the Babylonians, and the rest of the Jews were carried off into exile.

            Now, more than 3,000 years later, many in our own land seem to want to put their futures in the hands of a putative leader who disregards standards of human decency, and seems to have no regard for the underlying rules by which our democracy has governed itself for generations.  The Israelites disregarded the Lord’s and Samuel’s warnings 3,000 years ago.  Will we make the same error now?

Endorsements for Montgomery County School Board, 2016

Every two years, around this time, I get questions about who to vote for for the Montgomery County Board of Education. This is where I am coming from on MCPS issues: I have been involved in MCPS matters since 1984, when I was co-president of the Rosemary Hills Primary School PTA, working for needed resources for this magnet integration school. Later, I was public affairs director for the Gifted and Talented Association of Montgomery County, working to secure appropriate education for students and seeking ways to widen the net with respect to GT identification and opportunities; I subsequently worked to protect needed resources for the Blair, Richard Montgomery, Takoma Park, and Eastern signature secondary schools. Beginning in 2002, after my children graduated from MCPS, I became active in working to secure appropriate health education and other MCPS policies regarding LGBT issues, and continue in this area (in which MCPS has made great progress) to this day.

There are three contests, At-Large, District 2, and District 4. Every voter may vote in all three contests.

At-Large: Jeannette Dixon

Incumbent Phil Kauffman is running for his second reelection to this seat. I do not have significant disagreements with him on substantive matters, but have been disappointed with how he has viewed his role as a Board member. On matters relating to LGBT issues, for example, he has been on our side, but has never pushed to get things done -- an approach (taken by some, but not all BOE members) that, in my view, unnecessarily delayed implementation of effective health education curriculum revisions for seven years. As someone who has been involved in MCPS matters for more than 30 years, I am convinced that BOE members need to be more proactive. When Phil spoke at a candidate forum before the primary, he reiterated his commitment to a relatively hands-off approach, leaving virtually everything to the Superintendent. I disagree. The BOE and the Superintendent need to be in a collaborative relationship. I like Phil personally and on substantive policy, but his approach to the role of the BOE is, in my view, too cramped, and has not served MCPS well. I think we can do better. I should note that the Montgomery County Teachers Association (MCEA) has endorsed Phil. See here for MCEA's endorsement list and a link to its questionnaires to the candidates. I generally agree with the MCEA endorsements, but not in this contest.

Jeannette Dixon, the retired principal of Paint Branch High School, seems to generally align with my substantive views -- particularly on LGBT matters -- and promises to be more proactive. If Ms. Dixon is elected, three of the seven BOE members (excluding the student member) would be former principals, which, all things being equal, seems to me a bit too many. That is one reason I voted for Sebastian Johnson in the primary. But all things are not equal, and I favor Ms. Dixon because I think the Board needs to be more proactive. So I am voting for Jeannette Dixon.

Pasted below is my e-exchange with her on LGBT matters:

My e-mail to Ms. Dixon:

My name is David Fishback; I was Chair of the BOE's Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life & Human Development from Jan. 2003 through May 2005 and now am Advocacy Chair for the Metro DC Chapter of PFLAG. I am very interested in knowing your views on LBGT matters at MCPS. See this blog, which summarizes the 2002-14 controversy, which resulted in great progress: http://davidfishback.blogspot.com/2015/11/successful-public-school-lgbt.html

I look forward to hearing from you.

Ms. Dixon's response:

David I just finished reading your blog. It seems to me that you deserve the JFK Library Profile in Courage Award. Thank you for sticking with this all of those years and for your group's commitment to the rights of our students. You should know that if I were on the Board during this time I certainly would have had the courage to bring this up and not let politics get in the way of doing what is right for our students and helping to eradicate ignorance. The fact that having information on LBGT included in the Health curriculum took the BOE this long to act is unacceptable. I support LBTG rights 100% and if I am elected you can count on my active support on the Board, including speaking at forums if asked to do so.. When I was principal of Paint Branch we had a Gay/Straight Student Alliance that I was very supportive of and very proud of. We should have one in every high school at a minimum and begin the process of educating students at the elementary and middle school levels as well as a normal part of instruction by also highlighting the contributions that LBGT people have made to America. Something akin to getting the contributions of African-Americans and other groups recognized as a part of our American history story. It seems to me your blog is a great contribution to LBGT literature and you should think about having it published as a pamphlet which the Metro DC Chapter of PFLAG could sell to underwrite the cost. You made a difference for generations to come.Thank you for your work on all of this.

Best regards,

Jeanette Dixon

District 2: Rebecca Smondrowski

I do not know first-term incumbent Rebecca Smondrowski. As far as I can determine, she has supported progress regarding LGBT matters Given that her opponent, Brandon Orman Rippeon, has no discernible involvement in MCPS matters and, more to the point, is a conservative who unsuccessfully ran to the right of then-incumbent Congressman Roscoe Bartlett in the 2012 Republican primary (see here), I have no reason at all to think that we would want him on the BOE. Anyone associated with the right-wing of the Republican Party needs, in my view, to overcome a presumption of hostility to LGBT concerns. Mr. Rippeon has done nothing to try to overcome that presumption. (For background, see here for what happened in 2010 when someone active in local Republican Party politics ran (unsuccessfully) for the BOE. ) Ms. Smondrowski has been endorsed by MCEA. This is an easy call. I am voting for Rebecca Smondrowski.

District 4: Shebra Evans

This is a seat in which the incumbent is not running. Beginning in 2014, when she first ran for the BOE, I have had good discussions with Shebra, including one at a PFLAG house party. I had invited several BOE members (and former candidates); Shebra (along with Jill Ortman-Fouse and Mike Durso) came. I am confident that she would be a solid supporter of the positive direction MCPS has been taking on LGBT matters. I also find her experience as an MCPS parent and school activist very useful and laudable, and her views about the limits of high-stakes testing and appropriate education for all students consistent with my own. Shebra has been endorsed by the MCEA and nearly all of the members of the Montgomery County delegation to the General Assembly, including Rich Madaleno, Anne Kaiser, and Bonnie Cullison. See here . I do not know very much about her opponent, but I am very confident that Sheba would make an excellent BOE member. I am voting for Shebra Evans.

The Deeper Meaning of the Latest Quinnipiac Poll: Trump Is In a Deeper Hole Than the Pundits Say

Donald Trump and his new campaign CEO Steve Bannon

The latest Quinnipiac Poll shows Hillary Clinton beating Donald Trump by 51-41 in a head-to-head matchup, and by 45-38 if Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Jill Stein are included.  The headline on the Quinnipiac press release reads as follows:

CLINTON TOPS 50 PERCENT, LEADS TRUMP BY 10 POINTS, QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY NATIONAL POLL FINDS; VOTERS LIKE CLINTON MORE THAN TRUMP – BUT NOT MUCH

I think the headline does not delve deeply enough into Quinnipiac’s own figures.  The press release notes that a “total of 44 percent of American likely voters like Clinton ‘a lot’ or ‘a little,’ while 47 percent dislike her ‘a little’ or ‘a lot,’ and 8 percent hate her [55% negative]. A total of 35 percent of voters like Trump ‘a lot’ or  ‘a little,’ while 53 percent dislike him ‘a little’ or ‘a lot,’ and 10 percent hate him [63% negative].”

Given the fact that 55% have a negative view of Clinton, and 63% have a negative view of Trump, Quinnipiac suggests that things may be closer than they are.  But I would posit that, in this environment, voters who only dislike a candidate “a little” could end up voting for that candidate, given the alternative. 

If you look at Questions 17 and 18 of the poll, a slightly more sophisticated picture comes into focus.  Only 41% of voters hate or dislike Clinton a lot, but 49% hate or dislike Trump a lot.  This is key.  No candidate is likely to get someone’s vote if they hate or dislike the candidate a lot.  And Trump is just short of so alienating nearly half the electorate.

On the other hand, the 41% who hate or dislike Clinton a lot is basically the irreducible percentage of the electorate who could be accurately described as “yellow dog Republicans.”  (The term originated with Southern Democrats before 1964, for whom it was said that they would even vote for a "yellow dog" if that dog was running on the Democratic ticket.)   Any voter who is not in that “hate” or “dislike a lot” group is a potential Clinton voter, given the views on Trump. And any voter who is in the “hate” or “dislike a lot” group is, it seems to me, highly unlikely to vote for a candidate that voter so despises. 

I believe its is quite unlikely that very many voters who currently dislike Clinton only “a little” will be tipped into the “a lot” category.  Their views of Clinton are already baked in, due to a quarter century of Republican attacks and Clinton's own missteps regarding her State Department emails.  The new "revelations" probably will not make things any worse for her.  But Trump is a newer commodity, and his recent antics may tip a lot of people from the “a little” to the “a lot” or even “hate” category, now that more and more people are paying closer attention as Election Day gets closer.  His attack yesterday on Clinton, calling her "a bigot" – a term even his Republican supporters decline to agree with in public – could very likely put him deeper in negative territory, particularly when paired with Clinton's documented demonstration, heavily covered in the media, of Trump's history of bigotry and divisiveness, culminating in his recent appointment of Breitbart chief Steve Bannon to be his campaign CEO.  It is noteworthy that the Quinnipiac Poll was taken between August 18 and 24 -- mostly, or perhaps entirely, before yesterday's seminal dueling speeches.

Trump is clearly doubling down on his slash and burn personna. Even his supposed "softening" on immigration is so vacillating that he alternately appears to be not changing at all, or doing a total flip-flop.  So Trump may already be in check-mate, absent a radical change in the picture.  He is certainly not likely to replace Steve Bannon with Steve Schmidt. 

Of course, this does not mean anyone should take anything for granted, and, for Clinton to actually fulfill campaign promises, the Democrats must retake the Senate and, hopefully, the House.  But things are moving in the right direction.  It is pedal-to-the-metal time.

Evan McMullin: Linchpin of the Plot to Defeat Donald Trump and Make Mike Pence President

Evan McMullin and Donald Trump

As soon as I heard that the latest Never Trump conservative “Independent” candidate,  Evan McMullin, did his undergraduate work at Brigham Young University, the Never Trump strategy came into focus. I am sure they know it is a Hail Mary, but their entire approach may be to pour their resources into Utah, where Donald Trump is extremely unpopular, behind a Mormon candidate whose background (Mormon missionary AND CIA operative) fits the conventional wisdom of the Utah sensibility. And the final goal will be to place Mike Pence in the White House.

Why pin their hopes on Utah?  Because if McMullin were to secure a plurality of the Utah presidential vote and thus Utah’s six electoral votes, there is a possibility, however remote, that the election could be thrown into the House of Representatives.  Just take a look the Real Clear Politics Create Your Own Presidential Map.  Given the recent gains made by the Clinton Campaign, this scenario is not terribly likely, but it is possible, and this is what the Never Trump conservatives are hoping for. 

As all political junkies know, 270 electoral votes are needed to win the election.

If Clinton wins all the electoral votes in the Northeast, down the coast through Virginia (including Vermont and D.C., which have no coast), Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Colorado, New Mexico, Washington, Oregon, California, and Hawaii, she will have a total of 263.

Trump could lose Utah’s 6 electoral votes to McMullin.  It is significant that the latest Utah poll, completed August 4, has Trump at only 37% to Clinton’s 25% 

If Trump wins all the other states, he would have a total of 269. This means he would have to win North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, and Wisconsin.  If he loses any of them to Clinton, Clinton wins.  But a sweep of these four states is not inconceivable.

As I explained this past March in A Primer for Understanding Some Possible Ramifications of the Upcoming Republican Party Crackup, if no one secures a majority of the electoral college votes, then the President is selected by the House of Representatives among the top three vote-getters, with each state getting one vote.  A majority of state delegations are now, and are likely to be, controlled by Republicans.  But the fracturing of the Republican Party could easily result in no candidate securing a majority of 26 state delegations. 

Also, if no one secures a majority of the electoral votes, then the Vice President is selected by the Senate among the top two vote-getters.  If the Democrats win back a Senate majority, Tim Kaine would be elected Vice President; if there is a tie, then Vice President Biden would break the tie (this vote would take place before the end of his term in office), presumably selecting Kaine. 

But if the Republicans keep the Senate, then Mike Pence would be elected Vice President.  And, more to the point, the Vice President would be Acting President unless and until the House deadlock ended, as explained in the aforementioned Primer for Understanding.

This last scenario is the Never Trump desperate attempt to stop Donald Trump and place in the White House Mike Pence, a “traditional” anti-choice, anti-LGBT President.  Not a likely outcome, but the best the traditional right-wingers (as opposed to the new, "populist" right-wingers) could hope for.