This situation was bound to happen, just as soon as H. Ross Perot announced that he might run for the White House: Someone would dredge up the 12th Amendment. If you have nothing better to do on a rainy afternoon, you may wish to dredge away.
The Founding Fathers were great guys. The Constitution they created, built on the doctrines of federalism and separation of powers, remains a magnificent work of political art. Its worst defects were cured, more or less, by the Reconstruction Amendments that followed the Civil War. I am not knocking the Founding Fathers. Wonderful people.But alas, in drafting the provisions dealing with the election of a president, the Founding Fathers had a bad day. In their eagerness to get out of Philadelphia - the summer of 1787 was awfully hot - they created a system that might have been designed by a mad professor.
Under this system, the people do not elect a president. No, indeed. On Nov. 3, the people, state by state, will elect electors. On Dec. 14, the electors will meet, state by state, and undertake to elect a president. Here is where the fun begins.
Let us suppose, to be supposing, that things work out in this fashion:
President Bush carries 17 states, including Texas, with a total of 180 electoral votes. Bill Clinton, the Democratic nominee, carries 15 states and the District of Columbia, giving him 178. Perot's campaign has caught fire. In a year of political earthquakes he carries New York, Illinois and 16 other states to give him 180.
Those neat tallies are based upon an unreliable assumption. The assumption is that every Bush elector will vote in December for Bush, every Clinton elector will vote for Clinton, and every Perot elector will stand by Perot.
It might not work this way. No law can bind an elector to vote for the candidate to whom he is pledged.
Another small complication: Forty-eight of the 50 states go by the rule of winner-take-all. Maine and Nebraska choose their electors by congressional districts. Put this complication aside. We have enough complications as it is.
Now, because none of the three candidates has a majority of the 538 electoral votes, something peculiar happens. In this event, "the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the president." Here is the tricker: "In choosing the president, the vote shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote."
Mind you, this is the newly elected House of Representatives. Perot has carried 18 states. Thirty-five million people have said they want him to be president. But Perot, the candidate of the No Nonsense Party, has not a single member of the House to call his own. Nobody but Republicans, Democrats, and one free thinker from Vermont will be voting in the House.
What happens then? Surprisingly, Perot has carried Alaska overwhelmingly. Alaska's one vote will be cast by one man, Republican Rep. Don Young, who has just been re-elected. How would Young cast Alaska's vote? For Bush, in the name of party loyalty? Or for Perot, to reflect his people's wishes?
What would Tim Johnson do in South Dakota? Perot has swamped both Clinton and Bush. Johnson is a liberal Democrat. Does he cast South Dakota's vote for Clinton, who actually finished third?
The electors for Bush and Clinton are having problems of their own. Colorado has gone heavily for Bush. The state has returned three Democrats and three Republicans to the House. How will they cast Colorado's vote? Will Democrats Schroeder, Skaggs and Campbell yield to the will of the people and vote for George Bush? Pat Schroeder would die a thousand deaths.
I will not tell you what awful things could happen if the House cannot rally a quorum. Or suppose that none of the three can get the vote of 26 states. If such a stalemate should persist until March 4, do you know who would become president? Dan Quayle, that's who.
None of this will happen. You have to be a political nut even to think it might happen. But if you like horror stories, you'll love the Perot scenario.