2004 what-if

[© tweed]

Kerry and Edwards nab exactly 270 EVs on election night and are declared victors over Bush/Cheney by a margin of 270-268.  Bush and Cheney win the popular vote by about the same margin Al Gore did four years prior, but concede promptly and graciously on the morning of November 3rd.

but when the electors meet in December, one MN elector votes for a ticket of John Edwards (president) and John Edwards (vice president.)  so now, Kerry lacks the 270 necessary to be elected president.

questions:

-does the GOP lay down in the HOR and allow Kerry to become president, or do they fight and vote to elect Bush?
-does John Edwards still assume the vice presidency with his 270 VP EVs?
-if the GOP opts to elect Bush, is there a large public backlash?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The HOR elects Kerry, since there are a number of liberal Republicans who I am sure supported Kerry.  Edwards would assume the Vice Presidency, and there would be a massive backlash if Bush was picked.  The GOP would lose a massive number of seats in 2006, a lot more than they realy did.

[Boris]

The HOR elects Kerry, since there are a number of liberal Republicans who I am sure supported Kerry.

Uh, no. First of all, there aren't very many 'liberal Republicans' in the House anymore, and secondly, I doubt any of them voted for John Kerry. The Republican Party was more united behind Bush in 2004 than probably any candidate in recent history. Except maybe Reagan in 1984.

Would the MN elector have been allowed to revote? I remember than in New York, the electors accidentally voted for "John R. Kerry" or something instead of "John F. Kerry," and were allowed to rectify their mistake.

[HappyWarrior]

I believe oddly enough that Edwards would have been elected as VP unopposed, however Bush would have become president, resulting in the first bipartisan executive since Andrew Johnson and Abraham Lincoln.

[Lief 🗽]

John Edwards would have become Vice President without the need for a Senate vote, as he had 270 electoral votes for Vice President. The Republicans in the House would be heavily pressured to elect Kerry, or else they'd lose massively in 2006.

[© tweed]

would they (somewhat ironically) defend electing Bush by stating that it's okay since he won the PV, so the will of the people was not violated?

[Хahar 🤔]

would they (somewhat ironically) defend electing Bush by stating that it's okay since he won the PV, so the will of the people was not violated?

That's what I was thinking. They would get slaughtered for being hypocritical, though.

[Lincoln Republican]

The Republicans would look like complete hypocrites if they did not honor the intent of the electorate, which, in this scenario, was to elect Kerry.

Just because one elector turns out to be a rebel is no reason to disregard the will of the people.

For the Bush Republicans, the argument that Bush received more popular votes than Kerry would hardly hold any water, as they flatly rejected this argument in 2000 when Gore received more popular votes than Bush.

If the Republican controlled House elected Bush to the Presidency, which is their constitutional right, this act would have far reaching reverberations felt for years to come.

Besides, as President, Kerry would now be saddled with the Iraq fiasco, and it would be the Democrats who would be paying a political price in 2008. 

Edwards becomes Vice President regardless.

[gorkay]

The GOP would fight for Bush in the House. In every single other similar situation in American history, the parties have thrown fairness out the window and fought tooth-and-nail to win, no matter what the facts of the matter or the possible future consequences.