The Disputed Election of 1976

Bomster

Bomster

So I thought of an alternate history scenario. Basically, it’s the election of 1976, and on election night President Ford narrowly carries Ohio and Hawaii is too close to call. After an excruciating recount, Ford is affirmed as the winner of Hawaii, giving him the bare minimum expected electoral votes to win the electoral college. President Ford is expected to be elected to a full term. However, when the electoral college votes, just as IOTL a faithless elector in Washington writes in Reagan/Dole instead of Ford/Dole, denying Ford his 270th electoral vote and sending the Presidential election to the house while Dole is elected Vice President. With the House firmly Democratic, Carter is elected by the House. Carter is President-Elect, while Dole is Vice President-Elect, a unique situation. Angered by the loss, Republicans take out their frustration on Ronald Reagan and his followers. Is this scenario plausible? Or would the faithless elector simply give Ford the presidency?
 

tarrant77

In an election where its 270 to 268 i really doubt you would have a faithless elector. FEs have only happened when nothing was riding on it. The amount of pressure to toe the line would be great.

HOWEVER, in a situation where its that close, you MAY see a lot of pressure for a few to switch because Ford would have still lost the popular vote. I could see a scenario where a small group of electors agree to vote for Carter and Dole in that case.
 

David T

Mike Padden, the WA "faithless elector" who voted for Reagan instead of Ford, later made it clear that he would have voted for Ford if the outcome of the election depended on it.
"Padden: I was using my vote as a protest vote to highlight Governor Reagan's support of the pro-life cause, but it was not going to ever be at the expense of the election itself...

I think the big thing to emphasize is that in neither of our cases did the fate of the presidency hang in the balance. Speaking for myself, had that happened, I would have voted for Ford." https://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/17/magazine/the-way-we-live-now-12-17-00-shoptalk-swing-voters.html

Almost all faithless electors say this: "I would have voted for my party's nominee if my vote would have made a difference." There is to my knowledge only one exception;

Robert Satiacum Jr. - Wikipedia
“No, no, no on Hillary. Absolutely not. No way,” said Robert Satiacum, a member of Washington’s Puyallup Tribe who had supported Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders as the Democratic presidential nominee.

He had earlier told various media outlets he was wrestling with whether his conscience would allow him to support Clinton and was considering stepping aside for an alternate elector. But on Friday, he sounded firm, even if the election is close.

“I hope it comes down to a swing vote and it’s me,” he said. “Good. She ain’t getting it. Maybe it’ll wake this country up." 1 Washington state Democratic elector won’t support Clinton, another won’t commit | The Seattle Times
 
Nürnberger

Nürnberger

Banned
There was a TL with a similar premise, it's called Freedom dies in darkness, only there such a situation was in '68 with Johnson/Nixon race, and there were 4 parties with Wallace and McCarthy splitting the vote

But if that happens after Watergate it means that the Long national nightmare just got A LOT longer...

Cool idea!
 

marktaha

Banned
Nürnberger said:
There was a TL with a similar premise, it's called Freedom dies in darkness, only there such a situation was in '68 with Johnson/Nixon race, and there were 4 parties with Wallace and McCarthy splitting the vote

But if that happens after Watergate it means that the Long national nightmare just got A LOT longer...

Cool idea!
Click to expand...
Would like to read it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top