this is next to impossible considering how entrenched the republicans and democrats became at the turn of the century, but it could be done, you merely need the 2 parties to fracture enough, say in the 1912 election, as an example, both the republicans and democrats are split (wilson doesn't get nominated and runs his own third party candidacy) allowing debs to get a few electoral votes, obviously no candidate would come close to getting the majority needed, what are your thoughts?
AHC: united states presidential election with the most candidates possible winning electoral college votes
- Thread starter tophatgaming
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ahc
Both major-party candidates somehow die in late November, and the electors go nuts with alternate choices.
Do you mean perhaps late October since election would be early November? And if candidates would die just before the election, wouldn't vice president candidates become main candidates?
here's an idea: fdr lies about his age to fight in the Spanish-American war where he dies in combat, without him unemployment rises to 40%, the 1936 election having 10 candidates, Charles Evens Hughes resigning as chief justice to run for office, Huey Long creating his own share our wealth party, a billionaire attempts to run an independent candidacy, oh yeah and Herbert Hoover runs again for a third term, no matter who wins. someone is going to be angry
No, after the popular election but before the electoral college meeting, so all the electors not bound by state law to vote for the deceased candidates end up making haphazard alternate choices (such as in 1872)
[ Bonus constitutional crisis points if there is a four-way tie for most electoral votes. ]
Last edited:
Hard to think of a time. Maybe a really bad depression brings about a socialist candidate that can win a state in 32 but I doubt it. 1948 would be a good candidate but I have a hard time seeing Wallace getting any states. The next best chances for more than three would be 1968 with a real anti-war candidate and after that, it’d be tough to get even three candidates winning electoral votes. Maybe in 92 Perot could win some states.
Also this gets too into modern politics but maybe you see in 2016 a race where Evan MacMullin wins Utah and Bernie Sanders runs as an independent and wins Vermont.
Also this gets too into modern politics but maybe you see in 2016 a race where Evan MacMullin wins Utah and Bernie Sanders runs as an independent and wins Vermont.
that is pre-1900
1860 United States presidential election - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Ross Perot results by state. Dark green is states were Perot got 30%+ of the popular vote.
Maybe if you have someone other than Truman as president. Maybe William Douglas isn’t as big in civil rights as Truman was for the time, but still scary enough for southern democrats to split. Maybe in such a situation, Wallace does better up north. I have a hard time seeing Wallace getting any electoral votes though.