Over the past few weeks, I’ve seen more and more of my
friends and family eagerly post about the chance for this 2016 election to end
up being decided in the House of Representatives if none of the candidates acquire
the required 270 electoral votes. There are constant references to the 1824
election when this last happened, and along with that a lot of false
information or at least innuendos being thrown around. So here are my
thoughts/arguments about that…
In the 1824 election there were not two major candidates
running for president and a couple low level “doesn’t have a chance”
candidates. Rather, there were four very qualified candidates all running for president from the same party. Weird, right? But
it is what it is. Andrew Jackson won the popular vote, but only received 99
electoral votes and in 1824 you needed 131 to win. None of the other candidates
had 131 either so the vote then went to the House of Representatives to decide.
The House of Reps decided on John Quincy Adams who was runner-up in the popular
vote and that led to all sorts of talk about a “corrupt bargain” being made
behind closed doors—basically that he made promises to high up people in order
to get the Win. Should Jackson have won because he won the popular vote? Maybe,
but even recent elections make it clear that winning the popular vote does not
guarantee you the presidency—thanks electoral college! (*See 2000 election...)
There are numerous lessons from the 1824 election, and one
of the biggest is that a vote ending up in the House of Representatives is a
disaster. John Quincy Adams was not some unqualified nobody, dark horse
candidate. He was possibly the most qualified president the USA has ever
had—serving as a US ambassador/minister at only 26, and serving as a secretary
to a different diplomatic mission when he was only 14. None of that seemed to
matter, however, when he won election in the controversial “House of Reps
decides!” 1824 election. Supporters of Jackson blocked him at every turn, and
little governing was actually accomplished for the next 4 years.
In American politics of our modern day, there are two
majority parties. And Congress is never more partisan than in an election year.
Should the 2016 election tragically end up in the House of Reps, you can surely
expect representatives to vote straight down party lines. I mention this
because the Republican Party currently controls the House of Reps, and over 175
current Republican Representatives have publically endorsed Donald Trump—among
them the Majority Leader, Paul Ryan.
Finally, America seems to be more divided and volatile than
we’ve seen it in many generations. The #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary movements
seem to make that pretty clear—among a myriad of other things. In a climate
such as this, sending the decision for the presidential election out of the
hands of 200 million voters and into the hands of 435 politicians (who are not
exactly beloved by the American people on a normal day) is bound to anger not a
few Americans and perhaps have negative consequences we cannot yet see.
We are free to vote how we want in this country (God Bless
America), and more than anything I say “Go vote!” and let your voice be heard.
But for those who are buying in to the hype and intrigue of such a unique, historical
and improbable turnout—and frankly hoping such a thing occurs—I’d encourage you
to consider what history has taught us and how things would most likely end in
our 2016 reality.
