Tied EC, Independent win?

[Gustaf]

Now, let's assume the following, rather unlikely scenario for the 2008 election (the actual year doesn't matter much). An indepenent, who we for fun's sake may call Charles Foster Kane, launches an independent campaign à la Perot. With tons of charisma and lots of cash he draws enormous support from urbanites and suburbanites, especially. He emphasizes a sort of moderate libertarianism in a way that really attracts people. The Democrats have nominated John Edwards, or whoever, who runs a populist campaign. As Kane cuts into Edward's urban base he goes even further on the offense to get rural voters. The Republican campaign, meanwhile, is lackluster, having nominated some sterotypical conservative who is liked by no one. On election day, the result is as follows (grey being Kane's states):



Kane has recieved 37% of the vote and 269 EVs, Edwards 34% and 219, Trent Lott (heh) 28% and 50 EVs. Both House and Senate looks like today, at least roughly (to make this interesting). So what do they do? Do they actually go through with electing Lott despite his poor 3rd place finish?

THe candidates obviously aren't the point, if you can think of more suitable names for achieving this result, go ahead and change it.

[Gustaf]

Ah, I forgot the senate had that special rule...ok, then you might imagine a scenario when the 2nd finisher's party has the congress majority but is way behind?

And Andrew, nice banner. It's a great movie.

[Gustaf]

Well, the point here was to get a discussion on hoe far could they go?