An Electoral College Tie? It Could Happen

Robert Bennett, in the NYT (Aug. 11, 2004):

Almost since its inception more than 200 years ago, the Electoral College has had its critics. Most of the contemporary objections are structural: because the college is apportioned on a state-by-state basis, with most states then choosing their electors through a winner-take-all popular election, the system could lead to what is known as a "minority president" - as it did four years ago, when George W. Bush lost the popular vote but still won the presidency.

But this system has many defenders, who point out that the college retains an important role for the states. A more serious flaw is a more simple one: because it has 538 members - one for each senator and member of the House of Representatives, plus three for the District of Columbia - the Electoral College invites stalemate. We came perilously close to a tie in the 2000 election, when 266 electors voted for Vice President Al Gore and 271 for Gov. George W. Bush (one elector pledged to Mr. Gore cast a blank ballot).

Can we head off the possibility of a tie? The answer is yes - but the only way to do so short of a constitutional amendment is to add an odd number of seats to the House. If the size of the House were increased by one, for instance, there would be 539 members of the college, and much less chance of a tie.

A tie in the Electoral College could be disastrous - because in that case, the House itself chooses the president, and in the House ferocious bargaining might well overwhelm the process. The presidency, after all, is a very big prize, and the House's procedure creates fertile ground for unseemly bargains....

Increasing the size of the college will not eliminate the possibility of recourse to the House. There could, for instance, be an abstention, as there was in 2000. But the size of the House is the only component of the Electoral College that can be changed without a constitutional amendment, and the relatively modest step of adding a single seat to the House would greatly reduce the chances of a tie.

An increase in the number of representatives will not come easily. The House has been the same size for almost a century, and even raising the possibility of a small increase would surely tempt states that covet larger delegations to push for a larger increase. Such an increase would raise an entirely different set of issues, and would be a mistake. But we should not put off this debate because of a misplaced confidence that a tie in the Electoral College is a remote possibility.