Now that there's a presidential campaign whose candidate I can support, I'm free to engage in yet another pipedream. My regular readers know that this is something I frequently do when attempting to forget those aspects of today's politics which cause me frustration. And my readers should also know that at the moment I am nowhere near as frustrated over the state of things as I have been recently. Health care reform appears to have risen from the dead, an agreement on the minimum wage appears to be around the corner, and, for a change, politicians seem to actually be starting to believe that accomplishment is better politics than rhetorical one- upmanship. This current fit of sanity and common sense may evaporate within weeks or even days, but it certainly offers some promise at the moment.
All of which doesn't change the fact that this political junkie is focussed on the future of the presidential campaign, not the future of whatever worthwhile legislative endeavors seem momentarily to have gained new momentum. Today's pipedream therefore is a hypothetical construct detailing how, realistically, my chosen candidate, former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm, might actually make it to the White House.
To begin with, it seems apparent to me that any victory for Governor Lamm, assuming he makes it past the minefield Ross Perot has strewn in his path inside the Reform Party, must be based on building upon and expanding the core disenchanted vote Perot received in '92. And that foundation must rest on the rules and quirks of the Electoral College. So I start out by identifying those states which have a history of ticket-splitting, or a large percentage of their population registered as independents, or gave Ross Perot a percentage of their vote higher than that of the national average, which was 19%.
After going through Michael Barone's Almanac of American Politics 1996 with a fine toothcomb, it has become obvious to me that Richard Lamm cannot win the election outright on November 5. Therefore, that should not be his goal. His goal should be TO WIN A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF STATES TO ESTABLISH HIS RIGHT TO THE PRESIDENCY IN THE SUBSEQUENT VOTE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Let me review briefly the procedures followed in the House of Representatives and the Senate when no Presidential candidate wins a majority of votes in the Electoral College. To begin with, the House of Representatives, in such a situation, is charged with the responsibility of selecting a President. They are instructed to make that choice from among the top THREE (3) finishers in the Electoral College. Each state's delegation has only ONE vote. This means that each state's delegation has to poll themselves and select their candidate jointly. Since each state's vote counts equally as one vote, and there are 50 states in all, THIS MEANS THAT A MINIMUM OF 26 STATES MUST VOTE FOR THE SUCCESSFUL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.
Subsequent to that, the Senate must engage in a similar process with respect to the Vice President with one small yet significant difference. The Senate is instructed by the Constitution to select from among the top TWO (2) finishers for the office within the Electoral College, thus guaranteeing that a Vice Presidential winner will be selected at the conclusion of their deliberations. These deliberations assume added importance when one considers that the rules as written mean there is always the possibility of a deadlock in the House, which means that the Senate's selection for Vice President could very well end up as the Acting President.
What does all this have to do with Richard Lamm? Everything. It means, for one thing, that the number of electoral votes he wins is nowhere near as important as the number of states which he wins. In other words, Richard Lamm must win in 26 states, AND CREATE ENOUGH PUBLIC PRESSURE TO CONVINCE THE MAJORITY OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM THOSE STATES TO PUT ASIDE THEIR PARTISAN LOYALTIES AND VOTE FOR THE PLURALITY OR MAJORITY WINNER IN THEIR CONSTITUENCY.
So this, as I see it, is the Lamm campaign's strategic assigment: Locate a minimum of 26 states where a plurality or majority victory is possible and fight hard to win all of them, ignoring the rest of the country, while at the same time starting a drumbeat of public pressure to convince Representatives that if he wins their state, and there is subsequently an Electoral College deadlock, they have to support him in the final vote on the House floor.
Which brings us to the question of which 26 states should be the focus of the Lamm campaign. In my opinion, those states should be Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Ross Perot received better than his national percentage of 19% in every one of the above states, and they all have a tendency to ticket-split, with many of them enjoying a large percentage of registered independent voters. Moreover, the combined total of electoral votes within these states is 220, which means that the Governor could then legitimately claim the Presidency as his by moral right; he would have won a plurality of electoral votes, leaving him as the odds-on favorite to win in the House.
I recognize that in the above list there are two states, California and Massachusetts, which many observers may feel are hopelessly in the Clinton camp. I do NOT feel that. In '92 Perot received 21% of the vote in California, and 22% in Massachusetts. Don't forget also that in California there is strong sentiment supporting the creation of a third party, as witnessed by the extraordinary success of the Reform Party petition signature drive, accomplished as it was in 18 days. There is another factor to be considered here too. Governor Lamm will not have the money, resources, and organization enjoyed by the major parties, which means that states which might be reasonable substitutes for California and Massachusetts, such as Indiana and Iowa, states where Perot did almost as well, and which with their smaller size are easy to organize for entrenched political machines, are not fertile ground for the Lamm candidacy. He has NO entrenched political machine. This means that Lamm will probably need to conduct almost exclusively an air war fueled largely by free media, which means that it will actually be easier for him to campaign in large media states like California and Massachusetts than in the less media- heavy prairie states of the Midwest. Add to this the fact that Perot did BETTER in California and Massachusetts than in most other states of the Union and the case for Lamm to include them in his magic 26 becomes almost irresistible.
There is a major potential trap in this scenario. Less than one-third of the Senate is up for election or re-election this year, as is always the case. This means that after this year's election, there will remain a sizable contingent of Senators who, unlike their counterparts in the House, will not be dependent on the people's good graces in two years in order to keep their jobs. They will almost assuredly vote for their party's Vice Presidential candidates no matter what the outcome in the House might be. THIS MEANS THAT IT IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL TO THE LAMM CAMPAIGN FOR THE REFORM PARTY TO WIN A FEW SENATORIAL CAMPAIGNS. Right now, there is a Reform candidate by the name of Dean Barclay who is running an impressive campaign for the Senate in Minnesota. Ideally, Lamm needs several Dean Barclays running for the Senate, if the Reform Party is to hold the balance of power in the vote for the Vice Presidency. States which appear to be potentially fruitful territory for such efforts are Colorado, Delaware, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, and Oregon, all states where Perot particularly distinguished himself in '92. Minnesota and Oregon, in particular, have active thriving state parties allied with the Reform Party.
After studying the current makeup of the Senate, and assessing the political fortunes of those running for it, I have come to the conclusion that if the election were to be held today, the Senate would wind up split right down the middle, with 50 Democratic votes and 50 Republican votes, with the Vice President holding the tie-breaker vote. In effect, this means that as long as the Presidential election is thrown into the House, WE ARE VIRTUALLY GUARANTEED THAT AL GORE WILL BE OUR NEXT VICE PRESIDENT. But if candidates of or allied with the Reform Party mount successful Senate challenges in the 6 states mentioned above, the breakdown in the Senate will be 44 Democrats, 50 Republicans, and 6 Reformers. Since the Senate is constrained to select its Vice President from among the top TWO (2) finishers, and since in my scenario Lamm's Vice Presidential running-mate wins a plurality in the Electoral College, this means that the second place finisher in the Veepstakes will be either Gore or the GOP Veep. If we have 6 Reform victories in the Senate, the vote will probably go as follows: All Republicans will vote for the GOP candidate. All 6 Reformers will vote for Lamm's running-mate. The Democrats will be forced to choose between the bottom of the Lamm ticket or the bottom of the Dole ticket. They will almost certainly choose the bottom of the Lamm ticket as closer to their ideology than the right-wing running-mate Dole will almost assuredly pick. Net result: A tie in the Senate, with 50 votes for the Lamm Veep, and 50 votes for the GOP veep. Al Gore will almost certainly vote with his fellow Democrats for the Lamm option over the Dole option, giving the Lamm ticket the final victory.
Well, this was fun. Of course, this is all very long odds, and yet I believe this is the most realistic path to a Lamm victory for President. As I see it, all other strategies suffer from even longer odds. What do you think? Does anyone out there have an alternative strategy? Let me know about it. You are cordially invited to fill out the boxes below and express yourself. Bear in mind that I reserve the right to quote statements sent to me in this manner, in whole or in part, in subsequent Musings. Also, be sure to indicate in the Title of your Message the name of the Musings, "Hopes...," to which you are responding. Thank you.
Of course, if you prefer to contact me privately, off-the-record, feel free to do so at
