Maine and Nebraska are the only two states that allow a split electoral vote, with Nebraska having 5 electoral votes and Maine having 4 electoral votes.
But in 2008, Barack Obama won one electoral vote in Nebraska, while the state majority went Republican.
And in 2016, Donald Trump won one electoral vote in Maine, while the state majority went Democratic.
Assuming Joe Biden won back just two Trump states from 2016–Pennsylvania and Michigan, but failed to win back Wisconsin, Ohio, Iowa, and Florida, other Obama states in 2012 lost by Hillary Clinton in 2016, the following possible scenarios could occur!
We would go from 306 for Trump and subtract 20 for Pennsylvania and 16 for Michigan, and Biden would win with exactly 270 electoral votes!
But if the one Maine district stayed with Trump, the electoral vote would be a tie, 269-269, and the House of Representatives would choose the President, as they did in 1800 and 1824, with each state having one vote based on the majority of either party holding Congressional seats in each state.
But the 269-269 vote could be overcome if the one Nebraska district switched to support of Biden, as it did for Obama in 2008, and Biden would have 270 electoral votes!
Right now 26 states have Republican majority delegations, but that could change, if the Democrats were able to win two more states with a majority delegation of their party.
Of course, seven states only have one House member, so that person alone determines the state vote in those seven states.
Also, if we ended up with 25 states having a Republican and 25 having Democratic majority delegations, then there would be a massive constitutional crisis with the tie that would exist!
We could have Inauguration Day approach, and no certainty that either Joe Biden or Donald Trump would be declared the winner.
So then, Nancy Pelosi, assuming the House of Representatives stayed in Democratic hands, would become Acting President until, somehow, the deadlock was broken!
The blog topic using the word “Could†is addressing a possibility as Ronald points out how.
Yes—this is possible.
It is not likely.
National shifts from the previous presidential election cycle—and how it bares out on the electoral map—are usually decisive. Whether the incumbent party wins a party hold of the White House, or the opposition party wins a pickup, it is highly unlikely we would see, say, a 269-to-269—or 270-to-268—outcome because either result would be likely decisive enough.
It is not impossible.
I tend to focus more on percentage-points margins, because the same number of votes are not cast in every presidential election, and it is a more easily understood context. So, that is why I am able to determine Donald Trump cannot lose the U.S. Popular Vote by –3.75 or –4 points and get re-elected.
In raw votes, the polling is indicating there is so much that there is also too much shifting away from Trump for him to win re-election. That they add up more than what some people may anticipate or realize.
In the Top 10 populous states, a 2016 Trump carried 7. Of those 7, there were 3 which were 2012-to-2016 Republican holds: Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina. For a 2016 Trump, their raw-vote margins were approximately: +808k (Texas), +211k (Georgia), and +173k (North Carolina). Of the 7, there were 4 which were 2012 Democratic (re-electing Barack Obama)-to-2016 Republican pickups (for Trump): Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. For a 2016 Trump, their margins were approximately: +113k (Florida), +44k (Pennsylvania), +447k (Ohio), and +11k (Michigan). Of those 2012-to-2016 Republican holds, their combined raw-vote margins were nearly +1.2M. Of those 2012 Democratic-to-2016 Republican pickups, their combined raw-vote margins were approximately +615k. All together, the Top 10 populous states which carried for a 2016 Trump combined for just over +1.8M.
(In the previous blog, I commented that Trump, in becoming unseated here in 2020, may end up losing all of 7 those Top 10 populous states he had carried in 2016.)
I like to focus particularly on Texas. A 2016 raw-vote margin, for Trump, of over +800k. If that state, which ranks No. 2 in population, is shifting to that degree—that it is polling as either a narrow 2020 Republican hold or a narrow 2020 Democratic pickup—why would Trump be able to get by with holding Texas but not see bellwether state Florida, which ranks No. 3 in population, shift sufficiently enough to flip from 2016 Republican to 2020 Democratic (for Joe Biden)?
That same question can be asked for the rest of the Top 10 populous states, with respect to their raw-vote margins, in the 2016 Republican column of Donald Trump.
2020 Texas is a glowing example which has me looking at this topic and noting that, sure, it may be possible for a nation to deliver a result that may seem clichéd. But, it is highly unlikely here in 2020.
This type of scenario is more likely in an election year in which the presidency flips from the Democratic to the Republican column. It would be similar to 2000 George W. Bush. 1996 losing Republican nominee Bob Dole carried 19 states and received 159 electoral votes. 2000 Republican pickup winner Bush carried the party’s losing 1996 map and flipped +11 states, and their combined +112 electoral votes, a total of 271 electoral votes.
Yes—a 269-to-269 or 270-to-268 outcome would be a greater potential with a situation similar to Election 2020. And, with consideration to more recent voting patterns, it is more likely with a Republican pickup than a Democratic pickup outcome.
D, I do NOT see this scenario of 269-269 or 270-268 as at all likely.
But it is intriguing, and since I am an academic, it is fun to imagine the possibility occurring, but agree with you, that a major Democratic landslide is clearly in the making for 2020!
Ronald,
I know.
No problem.