WI: 2000 election goes to the House, Bush elected President, Lieberman as VP

[Tresckow]

Let’s say that Florida forfeits it’s electoral votes, perhaps Gore gets a very razor thin lead over Bush, and Florida does not certify its electoral votes, sending the election to the House as neither candidate hits 270. Given the composition of the House at the start of the Congress, Bush would have been the most likely to win, while the Senate is 50-50 with a Democratic VP (or perhaps Jeffords defects earlier and votes for Lieberman).

With the election settled by Congress, George W. Bush is now President and Joe Lieberman is now Vice President, the first time opposite parties held the Executive since 1865, and the first when it was held without planning since 1800.

What would this presidency of Bush and Lieberman look like? Would they actively work against each other? Or might they actually get along? Lieberman was more on the conservative side of the Democrats, even for 2000 standards, and notably campaigned for John McCain in 2008. Would a Bush/Lieberman ticket be out of question in 2004?

 

[C. McKay]

How long before Lieberman switches parties? A friend of mine dated Lieberman in the 1960s, and she said he was quite conservative, perhaps even a Republican then.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Lieberman helps cement neocons a bit more in the GOP. GOP a bit more interventionist and in certain ways more moderate/"cucked" socially. Democrats a bit less pro-war than OTL with no trump-era defection of neocons.

Jeb with Ted Cruz is the 2016 one termer.

Politics looks more like it did pre-2015.

 

[calvim]

Lieberman becomes a republican, or an independent much faster. His career ends with the vice presidency. He probably doesn't get renominated in '04, though cheyney doesn't either. If Lieberman does get the vp nod, the paleo cons revolt.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

If Florida failed to certify, and its electoral votes were not counted, Gore would have been elected President. The election would not have gone to the House.

The requirement for election is a majority of the electoral votes counted, not 270 votes. Not counting a state's electoral votes reduces the number of electoral votes needed to win. In the case of 2000, remove Florida's 25 electoral votes, and Gore defeats Bush 266 to 246. The number needed to win would have been 257.

This would not have happened in 2000, since the Florida legislature was going to name its own slate of Bush electors if the Supreme Court hadn't intervened.

Really there was no way Gore was winning that one except on election night.

To get the scenario you want, you need a third party candidate that carries a state, which is pretty much impossible in late twentieth century politics.

Lieberman ITTL backed the invasion of Iraq, and lost the Democratic primary when he ran for re-election as Senator since he was seen as being too supportive as Bush. I don't think his being VP for Bush makes much of a difference.

 

[Deleted member 145219]

Lieberman becomes President of the Senate.

 

[tarrant77]

Lieberman becomes President of the Senate.

You might want to check this out, my first thread here that took off by someone 😀

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/sen-lieberman-is-sen-palpatine.60109/

 

[Issei Uzumaki]

The requirement for election is a majority of the electoral votes counted, not 270 votes. Not counting a state's electoral votes reduces the number of electoral votes needed to win. In the case of 2000, remove Florida's 25 electoral votes, and Gore defeats Bush 266 to 246. The number needed to win would have been 257.

Bold claim. I’ve never heard such a thing, do you have an actual source for that? Cause that’s not what the Constitution says.

 

[Tresckow]

Bold claim. I’ve never heard such a thing, do you have an actual source for that? Cause that’s not what the Constitution says.

Seconded. Though this may unleash a totally different constitutional crisis.

Also, the post is another example of a frustrating practice here and in other alternate history circles: shooting down reasonable scenarios straight away. Even if what he said is true and 270 would no longer be the threshold, this scenario could still happen if you move a few states around, getting Bush and Gore to a tie (flip NH and ME-02 and it’s 269-268). Unless the scenario is something totally ridiculous, ie Sea Lion, there is no need to shoot down a what-if before it’s off the ground.

 

[New Potomac]

What would this presidency of Bush and Lieberman look like? Would they actively work against each other? Or might they actually get along? Lieberman was more on the conservative side of the Democrats, even for 2000 standards, and notably campaigned for John McCain in 2008. Would a Bush/Lieberman ticket be out of question in 2004?

Lieberman would be frozen out, to start, especially as his vote is going to help give Democrats control of the Senate from 2001-2003.

There would be fairly large effects given how much Cheney influenced Bush and the sway he had in the administration. Ironically there could be fewer neocons in positions of influence, though... I could also see Bush still turning to Cheney as a senior advisor or even giving him his old job at DoD. Lots of ways that could go, but it's hard to imagine the invasion of Iraq gets butterflied.

Lieberman and Bush could post-9/11 begin to have something approaching a productive relationship, perhaps even a fairly positive one. Easy to imagine them using Lieberman to give a more bipartisan sheen to the war on terror, and he could begin to hold some sway on security matters. But at the end the day Lieberman is still a pro-choice Democrat or Independent who is taking up a spot reserved for Dick Cheney or some other up and coming Republican. Can't have that.

 

[Maniakes]

Bold claim. I’ve never heard such a thing, do you have an actual source for that? Cause that’s not what the Constitution says.

From the 12th Amendment:

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed;

In this scenario, Florida appoints no electors, so the whole number of electors appointed is 513. A majority of 513 is 257.

For nobody to win a majority in the electoral college, Florida would need to appoint electors who vote for neither Bush nor Gore.

 

[MrHappy]

If Florida failed to certify, and its electoral votes were not counted, Gore would have been elected President. The election would not have gone to the House.

The requirement for election is a majority of the electoral votes counted, not 270 votes. Not counting a state's electoral votes reduces the number of electoral votes needed to win. In the case of 2000, remove Florida's 25 electoral votes, and Gore defeats Bush 266 to 246. The number needed to win would have been 257.

From the 12th Amendment:
In this scenario, Florida appoints no electors, so the whole number of electors appointed is 513. A majority of 513 is 257.

I found a law review article that concurs with this position, though the article envisions problems related to electors disqualified for some reason, which would also reduce the "whole number of electors appointed."

But should the vote have gone to the House on an Electoral College tie, my quick count is Bush- 30 states, Gore- 16 states and 4 states not voting due to evenly split contingents, but this count has 3 qualifiers: 1) my tally was done quickly; 2) I'm historically bad at math; and 3) its way past my bedtime.

 

[MrHappy]

Unless the scenario is something totally ridiculous, ie Sea Lion, there is no need to shoot down a what-if before it’s off the ground.

What do you mean Op. Sea Lion is totally ridiculous? Just wait until you read my newest post: "WI Zanzibar defeated the British Empire in 1896?"

 

[CCK]

Lieberman would be frozen out, to start, especially as his vote is going to help give Democrats control of the Senate from 2001-2003.

There would be fairly large effects given how much Cheney influenced Bush and the sway he had in the administration. Ironically there could be fewer neocons in positions of influence, though... I could also see Bush still turning to Cheney as a senior advisor or even giving him his old job at DoD. Lots of ways that could go, but it's hard to imagine the invasion of Iraq gets butterflied.

Lieberman and Bush could post-9/11 begin to have something approaching a productive relationship, perhaps even a fairly positive one. Easy to imagine them using Lieberman to give a more bipartisan sheen to the war on terror, and he could begin to hold some sway on security matters. But at the end the day Lieberman is still a pro-choice Democrat or Independent who is taking up a spot reserved for Dick Cheney or some other up and coming Republican. Can't have that.

I agree. This is the most likely scenario. I can see the vice-presidency reverting back to the way it was back in the Nixon and Ford years. Agnew was not part of Nixon's inner-circle and I could see Bush and Lieberman having a similar relationship. Before the 9/11 attacks the big issue of contention in D.C. (from my memory) was the controversy over federal funding for stem cell research. Bush was opposed to it and most Democrats were in favor of it, including Lieberman. I can see Democrats trying to lobby Lieberman to get Bush to change his opposition to it, but I doubt Lieberman would have gotten very far with that. After the 9/11 attacks I think Bush would have incorporated Lieberman more into national security decision making and foreign policy matters. But I think there would still be distinct differences on many domestic policy issues. Lieberman would have been fully supportive of the decisions to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Lieberman's support of the Iraq War would still have hurt any chances of him winning the Democratic primaries. Lieberman would probably explore a run for president in late 2002/early 2003. But with a rise in opposition to the war in Iraq inside the Democratic Party by late 2003 and Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean in 2003, I think would have sunk any chance of Lieberman being the Democratic nominee in 2004.

I think Bush would have made it clear to Lieberman by 2002 or 2003 that he would be choosing a Republican to be his running mate in 2004, which I imagine would not have come as a surprise to Lieberman. The Republican base would have wanted someone as their 2004 VP nominee that was opposed to abortion. I think Bush knowing that if he were re-elected in 2004, he wouldn't be able to run again in 2008 and would have been pressured by Republican advisors to choose a running mate younger than him and someone who would be a good candidate for the 2008 election (eliminating John McCain as a possibility). Bush would probably pick someone like then-Senator George Allen from Virginia to be his running mate in 2004.

Lieberman probably would have spent most of his vice-presidency under Bush traveling the world going to various state funerals of foreign heads of state (like Bush Sr. did when he was Reagan's VP).