If the 1968 US presidential election goes into the US House of Representatives, who would win? Let's say that Richard Nixon gets a plurality of electoral votes as well as a plurality of the national popular vote but is just short of 270 electors. Also, what about if Nixon gets a plurality of electoral votes but narrowly loses the national popular vote to Hubert Humphrey?

Would Southern segregationists be crucial in any US House battle for the US Presidency in 1968? If so, are they going to stick with Wallace (the House votes among the top three candidates, I believe, which includes George Wallace) or are they going to try making a deal with either Humphrey or Nixon? If so, exactly what is this deal actually going to look like? No race-based affirmative action and no forced school integration busing? Anything else?

Thoughts on all of this?

WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> wrote in
news:8cfd493d-ef73-430a-a5f8-44335a8bb520n@googlegroups.com:

> If the 1968 US presidential election goes into the US House of
> Representatives, who would win? Let's say that Richard Nixon gets a
> plurality of electoral votes as well as a plurality of the national
> popular vote but is just short of 270 electors. Also, what about if
> Nixon gets a plurality of electoral votes but narrowly loses the
> national popular vote to Hubert Humphrey?
>
> Would Southern segregationists be crucial in any US House battle for the
> US Presidency in 1968? If so, are they going to stick with Wallace (the
> House votes among the top three candidates, I believe, which includes
> George Wallace) or are they going to try making a deal with either
> Humphrey or Nixon? If so, exactly what is this deal actually going to
> look like? No race-based affirmative action and no forced school
> integration busing? Anything else?
>
> Thoughts on all of this?
>

FWIW, James Michener, a Humphrey elector from PA, later wrote that if there
had been no majority in the Electoral College, he would "inform all
Republican and Democratic electors that I was interested in a plan whereby we
would decide the election in the College between Nixon and Humphrey and not
risk domination by Wallace. Rather than allow one man to dictate who our
President should be, I thought it better for the nation that the two parties
decide between themselves what an honorable compromise might be and then
encourage their Electoral College members to swing enough votes to either
Nixon or Humphrey to secure his election."
https://books.google.com/books?id=kS3ZCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA12

Specifically, "If Nixon won the popular vote and led in electoral votes by a
clear margin, I would recommend to my party leadership that they arrange a
compromise with the Republicans and direct enough Democratic electors to
swing to the Republican column to ensure Nixon's election..."
https://books.google.com/books?id=kS3ZCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA14

If, say, Nixon got 266 electoral votes (but as in OTL lost Pennsylvania,
which means Michener as in OTL is an elector) it seems plausible to me that
Michener would be able to find the three other Democratic electors he needed
to make sure the race didn't go into the House. An interesting possibility
that someone brought up: Michener convinces enough Democratic electors to
vote for Nixon--but not for Agnew--so the VP race between Muskie and Agnew
goes into the Senate, which was 57-43 D...

--
David Tenner
dtenner@ameritech.net

On Saturday, 15 May 2021 at 05:52:23 UTC+1, dte...@ameritech.net wrote:
> WolfBear <m4j...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:8cfd493d-ef73-430a...@googlegroups.com:
> > If the 1968 US presidential election goes into the US House of
> > Representatives, who would win? Let's say that Richard Nixon gets a
> > plurality of electoral votes as well as a plurality of the national
> > popular vote but is just short of 270 electors. Also, what about if
> > Nixon gets a plurality of electoral votes but narrowly loses the
> > national popular vote to Hubert Humphrey?
> >
> > Would Southern segregationists be crucial in any US House battle for the
> > US Presidency in 1968? If so, are they going to stick with Wallace (the
> > House votes among the top three candidates, I believe, which includes
> > George Wallace) or are they going to try making a deal with either
> > Humphrey or Nixon? If so, exactly what is this deal actually going to
> > look like? No race-based affirmative action and no forced school
> > integration busing? Anything else?
> >
> > Thoughts on all of this?
> >
> FWIW, James Michener, a Humphrey elector from PA, later wrote that if there
> had been no majority in the Electoral College, he would "inform all
> Republican and Democratic electors that I was interested in a plan whereby we
> would decide the election in the College between Nixon and Humphrey and not
> risk domination by Wallace. Rather than allow one man to dictate who our
> President should be, I thought it better for the nation that the two parties
> decide between themselves what an honorable compromise might be and then
> encourage their Electoral College members to swing enough votes to either
> Nixon or Humphrey to secure his election."
> https://books.google.com/books?id=kS3ZCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA12
>
> Specifically, "If Nixon won the popular vote and led in electoral votes by a
> clear margin, I would recommend to my party leadership that they arrange a
> compromise with the Republicans and direct enough Democratic electors to
> swing to the Republican column to ensure Nixon's election..."
> https://books.google.com/books?id=kS3ZCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA14
>
> If, say, Nixon got 266 electoral votes (but as in OTL lost Pennsylvania,
> which means Michener as in OTL is an elector) it seems plausible to me that
> Michener would be able to find the three other Democratic electors he needed
> to make sure the race didn't go into the House. An interesting possibility
> that someone brought up: Michener convinces enough Democratic electors to
> vote for Nixon--but not for Agnew--so the VP race between Muskie and Agnew
> goes into the Senate, which was 57-43 D...
>
And the 1968 Electoral College ends up behaving more in the way that the Founding Fathers seem to have intended. Might this precedent have knock-on effects in future elections?

On 5/14/21 11:52 PM, David Tenner wrote:
> WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> If the 1968 US presidential election goes into the US House of
>> Representatives, who would win? Let's say that Richard Nixon gets a
>> plurality of electoral votes as well as a plurality of the national
>> popular vote but is just short of 270 electors. Also, what about if
>> Nixon gets a plurality of electoral votes but narrowly loses the
>> national popular vote to Hubert Humphrey?
>>
>> Would Southern segregationists be crucial in any US House battle for the
>> US Presidency in 1968? If so, are they going to stick with Wallace (the
>> House votes among the top three candidates, I believe, which includes
>> George Wallace) or are they going to try making a deal with either
>> Humphrey or Nixon? If so, exactly what is this deal actually going to
>> look like? No race-based affirmative action and no forced school
>> integration busing? Anything else?

First, look at the control of delegations in the House.

Based on the OTL House results, it would be D 25, R 20, tied 5.
There weren't many competitive in states where control was
contestable. The Democrats could gain only MD and VA, IMO. The
Republicans could pick up CA, MT, and VA. The states carried by
Wallace all had Democrat delegations.

OT1H, few House Democrats, even in those states, had openly
endorsed Wallace - maybe none. They couldn't afford to be
openly against the party's nominee. So they probably don't
support Wallace in the House. OTOH, they've all been re-
elected, and Wallace forcing a House election is a big deal
that would generate enthusiasm for him; and for holding out
as a group to get a deal.

However, _if_ the House breaks down as OTL, then the House
won't elect. The Dixiecrats only leverage is to threaten to
throw the election to Nixon.

>> Thoughts on all of this?
>
> FWIW, James Michener...

The novelist? Really? Cool.

> ... a Humphrey elector from PA, later wrote that if there
> had been no majority in the Electoral College, he would "inform all
> Republican and Democratic electors that I was interested in a plan whereby we
> would decide the election in the College between Nixon and Humphrey and not
> risk domination by Wallace...."

Yabbut how many others would have heeded this call?

> Specifically, "If Nixon won the popular vote and led in electoral votes by a
> clear margin, I would recommend to my party leadership that they arrange a
> compromise with the Republicans and direct enough Democratic electors to
> swing to the Republican column to ensure Nixon's election..."
> https://books.google.com/books?id=kS3ZCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA14

Especially _this_.

> If, say, Nixon got 266 electoral votes (but as in OTL lost Pennsylvania,
> which means Michener as in OTL is an elector) it seems plausible to me that
> Michener would be able to find the three other Democratic electors he needed
> to make sure the race didn't go into the House.

But if Democrats control the House, that is not just
thwarting Wallace, it's injuring Humphrey. Unless
House Dixiecrats openly threaten to stalemate the
House election if not paid off.

> an interesting possibility
> that someone brought up: Michener convinces enough Democratic electors to
> vote for Nixon--but not for Agnew--so the VP race between Muskie and Agnew
> goes into the Senate, which was 57-43 D...

That could be an interesting compromise. It has various
knock-ons.

Or... If the House stalemates, and the Senate elects Muskie,
then Muskie becomes President. That scenario is another
reason to reject Michener's proposal.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.