TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/052592/05259924.000

Text File | 1992-09-10 | 5.3 KB | 112 lines

                                                                                COVER STORIES, Page 35

ROSS PEROT

Electoral Roulette


If no candidate scores a clean win in November, Congress will
have to choose the next President and there could be
constitutional chaos

By LAURENCE I. BARRETT/WASHINGTON


    Each time an independent presidential prospect rises
above asterisk standing, an alarm shrieks on Capitol Hill. Sure
enough, Ross Perot's strong showing in polls has prompted dozens
of legislators to ask the Congressional Research Service for a
memorandum on the roles the House and Senate play if no ticket
wins a majority of the 538 electoral votes. The dry legalisms
make that process sound easy: the House would pick the President
from the top three candidates, while the Senate would select the
Vice President from the leading two. But the politics of the
issue are more complex and potentially scary.

    Iowa Congressman Jim Leach sees possible deadlock in the
House and weird maneuvering in the Senate. "The chemistry cannot
be understood in advance," he warns. Arkansas Senator David
Pryor fears a "constitutional crisis" in which a discredited
Congress would be seen as usurping the voters' will. That
happened after the 1824 election, when the House chose John
Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson in a four-way contest. As
recently as 1968, when George Wallace ran as an independent, the
country had a close call. Had Wallace won about 60,000 more
votes in three states, neither Richard Nixon nor Hubert Humphrey
would have won an electoral majority.

    If the popular vote in November sets up a stalemate, it is
possible that the candidates would try to woo some of the
Electoral College members, who meet in their respective state
capitals in mid-December to cast their official votes. These
electors are local political activists who run on slates chosen
by each candidate's organization. Though some states try to bind
electors to vote for their nominee, these laws are not enforced
when electors bolt. Still, party and personal loyalty would
probably keep the vast majority faithful.

    If the election goes to the House, the Democrats would
have a nominal advantage. Conventional wisdom suggests that
partisanship would also steer each chamber of Congress. But that
might not hold. In the present House, Democratic-controlled
delegations outnumber Republican ones by a ratio of 3 to 1.

    But it is the new House, elected in November, that would
deal with the question. The G.O.P. is likely to gain seats in
the fall, so more state delegations may be evenly split.
Because each state has only one vote and a majority of 26 states
is required, a decision could be elusive.

    California Democrat Howard Berman predicts that many
members would be torn among three choices: following their
party, their home districts or the way their state voted. As
Berman sees it, Perot could benefit if Bill Clinton fares poorly
in the popular vote. "A lot of members," Berman says, "might
prefer this diamond in the rough to four more years of gridlock
with Bush." To some legislators, every option could taste like
political hemlock. Ducking the decision equals cowardice.
Backing a candidate unpopular at home risks constituents' wrath.
Crossing party lines imperils any politician's future in public
office.

    In the absence of a verdict in the House, the Vice
President selected by the Senate would serve as President
starting Jan. 20. He would become the actual President if the
House stalemate lasted indefinitely. Each Senator has a vote,
and a majority of the 100-member body is necessary. On Jan. 6,
when the action would start, Dan Quayle would still be Vice
President. In his constitutional role as president of the
Senate, he could preside over the session dealing with his fate.
Legal experts are uncertain, however, whether Quayle could cast
a decisive tie-breaking vote on this question, as he can on
legislation.

    Democrats are expected to maintain control in the new
Senate. But if the Democratic ticket runs third in the national
election, its vice-presidential candidate would not be
considered by the Senate, which must pick between the top two.
The wildest scenario kicking around the Capitol envisions the
Bush and Perot slates coming in first and second, the House
deadlocking and Senate Democrats preventing action in their
chamber. They could avoid an unpalatable choice between the
G.O.P. and Perot's forces by refusing to provide the necessary
quorum. In that most improbable event, the Speaker of the House
(currently Tom Foley) would take over as President. Occupying
the White House under such dubious circumstances would be
nothing less than a political nightmare.

    Even in the absence of an important independent candidate,
the vagaries of the Electoral College system permit the victory
of a nominee who runs second in the popular vote. That occurred
in 1888 and almost happened again in 1976. Because Perot's
effort has focused attention on the process, Pryor has
reintroduced a constitutional amendment providing for popular
election of the President and Vice President. The House approved
that proposal in 1969, but the Senate quashed it. Today's
lawmakers, and the country at large, may pay a high price for
that rejection next January.