Hubbry Logo
search
logo
Contingent election avatar
Contingent election
Contingent election
current hub
C

Contingent election

logo
Community Hub0 Subscribers
Read side by side
Contingent election
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In the United States, a contingent election is used to elect the president or vice president if no candidate receives a majority of the whole number of electors appointed. A presidential contingent election is decided by a special vote of the United States House of Representatives, while a vice-presidential contingent election is decided by a vote of the United States Senate. During a contingent election in the House, each state delegation votes en bloc to choose the president instead of representatives voting individually. Senators, by contrast, cast votes individually for vice president.

The contingent election process is specified in Article Two, Section 1, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. The procedure was modified by the Twelfth Amendment in 1804, under which the House chooses one of the three candidates who received the most electoral votes, while the Senate chooses one of the two candidates who received the most electoral votes. The phrase "contingent election" is not in the text of the Constitution but has been used to describe this procedure since at least 1823.[1]

Contingent elections have occurred three times in American history: in 1801, 1825, and 1837. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, the presidential and vice-presidential nominees on the ticket of the Democratic-Republican Party, received the same number of electoral votes. Under the pre-Twelfth Amendment Constitution, a contingent election was held the following year to decide which one would be president and which vice president. In 1824, the Electoral College was split between four presidential candidates, with Andrew Jackson losing the subsequent contingent election in the House to John Quincy Adams even though he won a plurality of both the popular and electoral vote. In 1836, faithless electors in Virginia refused to vote for Martin Van Buren's vice presidential nominee, Richard Mentor Johnson, denying him a majority of the electoral vote and thus forcing a contingent election in the Senate for vice president; Johnson won the election handily.

The past three contingent elections were conducted by the outgoing Congress because congressional terms then ended / began on March 4, the same day as presidential terms. In 1933, the Twentieth Amendment set the new congressional term to start on January 3 and the new presidential term on January 20. The amendment shortened the length of lame-duck sessions of Congress by two months, and any future contingent elections would be conducted by the incoming Congress.[2]

Electoral College overview

[edit]

In the United States, the president and vice president are indirectly elected by the Electoral College, which, since ratification of the Twenty-third Amendment in 1961, consists of presidential electors from the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The 538 electors that make up the Electoral College are directly elected by their respective states. Since the election of 1824, most states have chosen their electors on a statewide winner-take-all basis, based on the statewide popular vote on Election Day.[3] Maine and Nebraska are the two exceptions, with both states allocating electors by congressional district. Although ballots list the names of the presidential and vice presidential candidates (who run together as a ticket), voters actually choose electors when they vote for president and vice president. The presidential electors in turn cast electoral votes for the two offices. Electors normally pledge to vote for their party's nominee, but some "faithless electors" have voted for other candidates.

A candidate must receive an absolute majority of electoral votes (currently 270) to win the presidency or the vice presidency. If no candidate receives a majority in the election for president or vice president, that election is determined via the contingency procedure in the 12th Amendment. In this case, the House chooses the president from among the top three presidential electoral vote-getters, and the Senate chooses the vice president from among the top two vice presidential electoral vote-getters.

Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment specifies that if the House of Representatives has not chosen a president-elect in time for the inauguration (noon on January 20), then the vice president-elect becomes acting president until the House selects a president. Under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the Speaker of the House will become acting president until either the House selects a president or the Senate selects a vice president. As of 2025, none of these circumstances have ever occurred. The Constitutional silence on this point could have caused a constitutional crisis in the 1801 contingent election, when the House of Representatives was temporarily unable to resolve the Jefferson–Burr Electoral College deadlock.[4]

Procedures

[edit]

Presidential election

[edit]

If no candidate for president receives an absolute majority of the electoral votes, pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment, the House of Representatives must go into session immediately to choose a president from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each state delegation votes en bloc, with each having a single vote. A candidate must receive an absolute majority of state delegation votes (currently 26 votes) to become president-elect. The House continues balloting until it elects a president. As a consequence of the en bloc voting, the party that holds the majority in the House could lose the contingent election if the minority party holds the majority of state delegations.[5] The District of Columbia, which is not a state, does not participate; the Twenty-third Amendment, which granted electoral votes to the district, does not grant the District of Columbia a vote in contingent elections.

Historically, a delegation that did not award a majority of its votes to any one candidate was marked as "divided" and thus did not award its vote to any candidate. This practice, set by House rule, was responsible for turning the Jefferson–Burr election of 1801 into a multiple ballot election. This rule was also followed in 1825 but was not a factor in the outcome. The contingent presidential elections to date have been held in closed session, with the vote of each representative not revealed outside the House Journal. The Constitution does not require a contingent election to be held in a closed session, so a future contingent election could be held in an open session with public voting.[2]

Vice-presidential election

[edit]

If no candidate for vice president receives a majority of the electoral votes, pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment, the Senate is required to go into session immediately to choose the vice president from the two candidates receiving the most electoral votes. Unlike in the House, senators cast votes individually. In a contingent election, the Senate votes separately from the House, so the president chosen by the House and the vice president chosen by the Senate could be from different parties.[6]

The Twelfth Amendment requires a "majority of the whole number" of senators (currently 51 out of 100) to elect the vice president in a contingent election. In practical terms, this means that an absence or an abstention from voting is tantamount to a negative vote and could impair the election of either candidate.[7] Some academics and journalists have thought that the language in the Constitution about being elected by a "majority of the whole number of senators" makes it unlikely that the vice president could break a tie.[6][8]

Past contingent elections

[edit]

1800 presidential election

[edit]
Further information: 1800 United States presidential election § 1801 contingent election
The Democratic-Republican Party intended for Thomas Jefferson (left) to be elected president and Aaron Burr (right) to be vice president, but they tied in the Electoral College and many Federalists in the House of Representatives voted for Burr in the contingent election due to their opposition to Jefferson.

The 1800 presidential election pitted the Democratic-Republican ticket, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, against the Federalist Party ticket, John Adams and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. Under the original process in the Constitution, each elector cast two votes with no distinction between those for president and those for vice president. The person receiving a majority of votes was elected president, and the person receiving the second highest number of votes was elected vice president. Each party planned to have one of their respective electors vote for a third candidate or abstain, so that their preferred presidential candidate (Adams for the Federalists and Jefferson for the Democratic-Republicans) would win one more vote than their other nominee. The Democratic-Republicans failed to execute their plan, however, resulting in a tie between Jefferson and Burr with 73 electoral votes each and a third-place finish for Adams with 65 votes.[9]

The Constitution mandates that, "if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse [sic] by Ballot one of them for President." Therefore, Jefferson and Burr were admitted as candidates in the House election. Although the congressional election of 1800 turned majority control of the House of Representatives over to the Democratic-Republicans, the presidential election was decided by the outgoing House, which had a Federalist majority.[9][10] Nonetheless, in contingent elections, the votes for the president are taken by states, with each delegation from each state having one vote; as a result, neither party had a majority in 1801, because some states had split delegations. Given the deadlock, Democratic-Republican representatives, who generally favored Jefferson for president, contemplated two distasteful possible outcomes: either the Federalists manage to engineer a victory for Burr, or they refuse to break the deadlock; the second scenario would leave a Federalist, Secretary of State John Marshall, as acting president come Inauguration Day.[11]

Over the course of seven days, from February 11 to 17, the House cast 35 successive ballots, with Jefferson receiving the votes of eight state delegations each time, one short of the necessary majority. On February 17, on the 36th ballot, Jefferson was elected after several Federalist representatives cast blank ballots, resulting in Maryland and Vermont's votes changing from no selection to Jefferson, thus giving him the votes of 10 states and the presidency.[9][10] This situation was the impetus for the passage of the Twelfth Amendment, which provides for separate elections for president and vice president in the Electoral College.[9]

1824 presidential election

[edit]
Further information: 1824 United States presidential election § 1825 contingent election
Four candidates received votes in the Electoral College in 1824, with no candidate attaining a majority. The House of Representative elected John Quincy Adams (left) even though Andrew Jackson (right) had won a plurality of both the electoral and popular votes in the original election.

The 1824 presidential election came at the end of the Era of Good Feelings in American politics and had four Democratic-Republican candidates who won electoral votes: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, William H. Crawford, and Henry Clay. While Andrew Jackson received more electoral and popular votes than any other candidate, he did not receive the majority of 131 electoral votes required to win the election, leading to a contingent election in the House of Representatives. Vice presidential candidate John C. Calhoun easily defeated his rivals, as the support of both the Adams and Jackson camps gave him an unassailable lead over the other candidates.

Following the provisions of the Twelfth Amendment, only the top three candidates in the electoral vote (Jackson, Adams, and Crawford) were admitted as candidates in the House: Clay, the Speaker of the House at the time, was eliminated. Clay subsequently threw his support to Adams, who was elected president on February 9, 1825, on the first ballot[12][13] with 13 states, followed by Jackson with seven, and Crawford with four. Adams' victory shocked Jackson, who, as the winner of a plurality of both the popular and electoral votes, expected to be elected president. By appointing Clay his Secretary of State, President Adams essentially declared him heir to the presidency, as Adams and his three predecessors had all served as Secretary of State. Jackson and his followers accused Adams and Clay of striking a "corrupt bargain", on which the Jacksonians would campaign for the next four years, ultimately attaining Jackson's victory in the Adams–Jackson rematch in the 1828 election.

1837 vice presidential election

[edit]
Further information: 1836 United States presidential election § 1837 Contingent election for Vice-President
While Democratic presidential candidate Martin Van Buren won a majority of the Electoral College, Virginia's electors refused to vote for his running mate Richard Mentor Johnson (left), forcing a contingent election in the Senate against Whig candidate Francis Granger (right).

In the 1836 presidential election, Democratic presidential candidate Martin Van Buren and his running mate Richard Mentor Johnson won the popular vote in enough states to receive a majority of the Electoral College. However, Virginia's 23 electors all became faithless electors and refused to vote for Johnson, leaving him one vote shy of the 148-vote majority required to elect him. Under the Twelfth Amendment, a contingent election in the Senate had to decide between Johnson and Whig candidate Francis Granger. Johnson was elected easily in a single ballot by 33 to 16.[14]

Proposed alterations

[edit]

Some members of Congress have proposed constitutional amendments to alter the contingent election process. Some proposals call for the abolition of the Electoral College and the contingent election process in favor of the direct election of the president, with the candidate who receives a plurality or majority of the popular vote becoming president. Other proposals have sought to alter the contingent election process for president so that each member of the House, rather than each state delegation, holds one vote, or to have both contingent elections done by a joint session of Congress.[2]

Outside the United States

[edit]

Contingent elections for president were historically also present in the constitutions of various Latin American countries which were influenced by the U.S. Constitution.[15] For example, under the Chilean Constitution of 1925, if no candidate won an absolute majority in the presidential election, both houses of the National Congress would come together to select one of the top two candidates as President.[16]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Contingent election

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A contingent election is a constitutional mechanism in the United States by which Congress selects the president or vice president if no candidate secures a majority of electoral votes in the Electoral College. Enacted through the Twelfth Amendment, ratified in 1804, this process addresses failures in the electoral system by assigning the House of Representatives—voting by state delegation, with each of the fifty states casting a single vote—to choose the president from the top three electoral vote recipients, while the Senate selects the vice president from the top two, with each senator voting individually.[1] The procedure demands a majority for election, and failure to achieve one by January 20 results in the vice president-elect (if qualified) or the Speaker of the House serving as acting president until the House completes the election of the president.[2] Historically rare, contingent elections have underscored tensions in the republic's design, with the House deciding the presidency twice—first in 1801, elevating Thomas Jefferson over Aaron Burr after a tied Electoral College under the original constitutional framework that prompted the Twelfth Amendment's reforms, and again in 1825, where John Quincy Adams prevailed over Andrew Jackson in a bitterly contested vote amid accusations of a "corrupt bargain" involving Henry Clay's support. The Senate invoked the process once, in 1837, to confirm Richard Mentor Johnson as vice president after he fell short of a majority due to defections from electors aligned with Martin Van Buren. These episodes highlight the mechanism's potential for partisan deadlock and its role as a safeguard against electoral paralysis, though modern analyses note procedural ambiguities, such as state delegation voting rules and timelines, that could amplify disputes in a fragmented Congress. No contingent election has occurred since, reflecting the Electoral College's typical functionality despite ongoing debates over its democratic legitimacy.

Background and Constitutional Framework

Establishment in the U.S. Constitution

The contingent election procedure was originally established in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, ratified on September 17, 1787, which provided that if no candidate received a majority of electoral votes for President—cast as undifferentiated votes for two persons—the House of Representatives would select the President from the five candidates with the highest number of electoral votes, with each state delegation casting a single vote regardless of its size.[3][4] This mechanism aimed to resolve tied or inconclusive electoral outcomes by deferring to the House, but it assumed electors would vote for two distinct individuals without specifying separate ballots for President and Vice President, leading to ambiguities in practice.[5] The procedure was significantly revised by the Twelfth Amendment, ratified on June 15, 1804, which separated the electoral votes for President and Vice President and narrowed the House's selection in a contingent presidential election to the top three candidates by electoral vote tally, maintaining the one-vote-per-state delegation rule.[6][7] For the Vice Presidency, the amendment directed the Senate to choose from the two highest vote recipients if no majority emerged, with each senator casting an individual vote.[8] These changes addressed flaws exposed by the 1800 election, where undifferentiated voting produced a tie between presidential and vice-presidential candidates from the same party, without altering the core contingency trigger of failing to achieve a majority of the total electors appointed.[9] Under both provisions, the contingent election requires, for the House, a quorum consisting of a member or members from two-thirds of the states and, for the Senate, a quorum consisting of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, as applicable, and must occur immediately upon failure to certify a majority, with the elected President or Vice President assuming office on March 4 (originally) or the applicable inauguration date if unresolved by then. The Constitution specifies no further fallback beyond these congressional processes, emphasizing the framers' intent to balance popular election through electors with legislative resolution to prevent executive vacancies.[10]

Purpose and Original Intent of the Founders

The contingent election provision in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution served as a fallback mechanism to guarantee the selection of a President should no candidate obtain a majority of electoral votes from the appointed electors.[3] Under this clause, the House of Representatives would choose the President from the five candidates receiving the highest number of electoral votes, with each state delegation casting a single vote regardless of its size, thereby preserving the federal character of the republic by emphasizing state equality in the decision.[3] This structure required a quorum of members from two-thirds of the states and a majority of all states for election, ensuring broad consensus and preventing dominance by populous states or narrow factions.[3] Alexander Hamilton articulated the Founders' rationale in Federalist No. 68, portraying the Electoral College as an intermediary body to refine public choice through informed deliberation, with the contingent election providing an additional safeguard against unqualified or intrigue-driven outcomes.[11] He emphasized that the process, by devolving to the House only in cases of deadlock and limiting choices to top vote-getters, minimized opportunities for cabals or foreign influence while leveraging representatives' firsthand knowledge of candidates' merits.[11] This design reflected a deliberate aversion to direct popular election, which the Framers viewed as prone to transient passions and demagoguery, as well as to unqualified congressional selection, which risked subordinating the executive branch to legislative control and eroding separation of powers.[12][13] Emerging from compromises at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, the provision balanced democratic elements with republican safeguards, as delegates rejected pure legislative election in favor of an electoral filter that defaulted to Congress only for resolution.[12] James Madison, while critiquing aspects of the system for potentially favoring smaller states, endorsed it as superior to alternatives that might amplify sectional divisions or popular volatility.[14] Overall, the mechanism embodied the Framers' intent to institutionalize a stable, merit-based executive selection process resilient to electoral failure, prioritizing qualified leadership over strict majoritarianism.[11]

Operational Procedures

Presidential Contingent Election Process

The presidential contingent election occurs when no candidate secures a majority of electoral votes in the Electoral College, defined as at least 270 of the 538 total votes allocated based on congressional representation and the District of Columbia's three electors.[15] This scenario triggers the mechanism outlined in the Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1804, which mandates that the House of Representatives choose the President from the top three candidates by electoral vote totals.[8] The process utilizes the newly seated House, convened on January 3 following the November election, and typically follows the joint congressional session on January 6 that certifies electoral votes.[2] Voting proceeds by state delegations rather than individual members, with each of the 50 states casting a single vote determined by a majority within its delegation of representatives present and voting.[15] A delegation deadlocked by equal division—such as in states with an even number of representatives—abstains from voting, effectively reducing the pool of decisive state votes.[9] A quorum for the contingent election requires attendance by at least one member from two-thirds of the states (34 states), ensuring broad representation before proceedings commence.[8] The House Speaker presides over the session, though the body must first organize by electing a Speaker, as House rules demand for conducting business.[16] Balloting continues until one candidate achieves a majority of state votes—currently 26 out of 50—without a fixed limit on rounds, though historical precedent suggests resolution within days to meet constitutional timelines.[15][2] The Twelfth Amendment specifies no role for political parties in vote allocation, emphasizing state-unit voting to balance small and large states' influence, a design rooted in federalist principles to prevent dominance by populous delegations.[8] The process must conclude before the January 20 inauguration deadline established by the Twentieth Amendment; absent a presidential selection, the Vice President-elect (or acting equivalent) temporarily discharges presidential duties until the House decides, averting a power vacuum. Only candidates who received electoral votes qualify, excluding write-ins or non-participants, and the House cannot amend the top-three restriction or introduce new nominees.[2] This framework prioritizes expedition and state equality, with no provision for Senate involvement unless the vice-presidential contingent election intersects, though the two proceed independently.[15] In practice, delegations may negotiate internally or across states to break deadlocks, but federal law imposes no deadlines within the January window beyond the inauguration.[9]

Vice-Presidential Contingent Election Process

The Vice-Presidential contingent election is triggered if no candidate secures a majority of the electoral votes allocated to electors, currently 270 out of 538. Under the Twelfth Amendment, the Senate then elects the Vice President from the two candidates receiving the highest number of electoral votes.[6] The Senate conducts the election separately from the House's presidential contingent process, with each of the 100 senators casting an individual vote rather than by state delegation. A quorum requires two-thirds of the Senate's total membership, or 67 senators, to be present. Election demands a majority of the whole Senate, meaning at least 51 votes, regardless of attendance beyond quorum.[6] Unlike the presidential contingent election, which imposes a deadline tied to the former March 4 inauguration date (now January 20 under the Twentieth Amendment), the Twelfth Amendment specifies no explicit time limit for the Senate's Vice-Presidential selection. In practice, the process follows the joint session of Congress for counting electoral votes, typically commencing on January 6, and aims for completion before inauguration to avoid succession complications. If unresolved, the Twentieth Amendment and Presidential Succession Act of 1947 dictate that the Speaker of the House would act as President if the presidency is also vacant, though no Vice President would be installed until Senate action or the next election.[6] The Constitution bars any person ineligible for the presidency—such as naturalized citizens or those under 35—from Vice-Presidential selection in this process. Balloting proceeds by viva voce or other methods as Senate rules permit, with the President of the Senate presiding unless recused.[6]

Historical Occurrences

The 1800 Presidential Election

The United States presidential election of 1800 resulted in a tie between Democratic-Republican candidates Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, each receiving 73 electoral votes, while Federalist incumbent John Adams garnered 65 and Charles C. Pinckney 64.[17] This outcome stemmed from the original constitutional mechanism, under which each elector cast two votes for president without distinguishing between the top two offices, allowing running mates to inadvertently tie if none of their electors cast one of their votes aside for an irrelevant candidate.[18] The Electoral College failure to produce a majority triggered the contingent election process outlined in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution, directing the decision to the House of Representatives.[19] With the outgoing Federalist-controlled House tasked to vote by state delegation—requiring a majority of states for victory—the proceedings commenced on February 11, 1801, amid intense partisan deadlock.[20] Initial ballots saw Burr supported by most Federalists wary of Jefferson's republicanism, resulting in no candidate securing the necessary nine states; Jefferson held eight states consistently, Burr six, and two divided or abstained.[21] The stalemate persisted through 35 consecutive ballots over six days, heightening fears of constitutional crisis, including potential military intervention or governance vacuum, as outgoing President Adams' term neared expiration on March 4.[22] Influential Federalist Alexander Hamilton's correspondence urged his party to back Jefferson, portraying him as less demagogic than Burr, swaying key delegations like Maryland and Vermont.[23] On the 36th ballot, February 17, 1801, Jefferson prevailed with ten states to Burr's four, the divided delegations aligning sufficiently.[22] Burr, who had not actively yielded during the impasse, accepted the vice-presidential role, averting further disruption; this resolution underscored the contingent election's vulnerability to factionalism and prompted the Twelfth Amendment's ratification in 1804 to mandate separate ballots for president and vice president.[18]

The 1824 Presidential Election

The 1824 United States presidential election occurred between October 26 and December 2, 1824, featuring four prominent Democratic-Republican candidates: Andrew Jackson, a general and incumbent Senator from Tennessee; John Quincy Adams, the incumbent Secretary of State; William H. Crawford, the incumbent Secretary of the Treasury; and Henry Clay, the incumbent Speaker of the House.[24] Voter turnout was limited, as only about a quarter of states held popular elections, with the rest decided by state legislatures.[25] Jackson secured the plurality of both popular and electoral votes, receiving 151,271 popular votes (approximately 42%) where counted and 99 electoral votes out of 261 total.[26] Adams followed with 110,501 popular votes (about 31%) and 84 electoral votes, while Clay garnered 47,136 popular votes (13%) and 37 electoral votes, and Crawford obtained 41,019 popular votes (11%) and 41 electoral votes.[26] No candidate achieved the 131 electoral votes required for a majority, triggering the contingent election process under the Twelfth Amendment, which directed the House of Representatives to choose the president from the top three electoral vote recipients: Jackson, Adams, and Crawford.[27] The contingent election took place in the 18th Congress on February 9, 1825, with each state's delegation casting a single vote regardless of size, requiring a majority of states (13 of 24) to prevail.[28] Clay, excluded from contention, threw his support to Adams, citing alignment on national infrastructure and economic policies over Jackson's military background.[25] Adams won on the first ballot with 13 state votes to Jackson's 7 and Crawford's 4.[28] John C. Calhoun, unopposed for vice president after receiving electoral majorities from Jackson and Adams supporters, assumed that office without House involvement.[26] The outcome sparked controversy when Adams appointed Clay as Secretary of State shortly after inauguration, prompting Jackson's allies to accuse them of a "corrupt bargain" for personal gain.[25] While Jackson claimed this deal predetermined the House vote, historical analysis finds no direct evidence of an explicit quid pro quo, attributing Clay's endorsement to policy preferences and strategic calculation amid Crawford's health issues from a stroke.[25] The episode fractured the Democratic-Republican Party, fueling Jackson's successful 1828 campaign and highlighting tensions between popular mandates and constitutional mechanisms in multi-candidate races.[24]

The 1836 Vice-Presidential Election

In the 1836 United States presidential election, Democratic candidates Martin Van Buren and Richard Mentor Johnson secured the presidential nomination, with Johnson selected as the vice-presidential running mate to balance the ticket geographically and politically.[29] The Whig Party, lacking a unified candidate for president, ran multiple regional nominees including William Henry Harrison, Hugh Lawson White, Daniel Webster, and Willie Person Mangum to deny Van Buren an electoral majority, a strategy that inadvertently extended to the vice presidency where Francis Granger emerged as the primary Whig counterpart.[30] Electors cast votes from November 3 to December 7, 1836, resulting in Van Buren receiving 170 electoral votes for president, a clear majority of the 294 total.[31] However, Johnson fell short of the required 148 votes for vice president, garnering only 147 due to defections among Virginia's 23 electors, all of whom supported Van Buren but split their vice-presidential ballots: 11 for Johnson, 7 for Granger, and 5 for former Virginia Governor William Smith.[32] This outcome stemmed from Virginia Democrats' objections to Johnson's public relationship with Julia Chinn, an enslaved woman of mixed race with whom he lived openly and fathered two daughters, a liaison viewed as scandalous in the slaveholding South despite Johnson's defense of it as a personal matter.[29] Under the Twelfth Amendment, the lack of a vice-presidential majority triggered a contingent election in the Senate, which would select from the top two candidates—Johnson and Granger—by majority vote among senators present, assuming a quorum.[2] On February 8, 1837, during the counting of electoral votes, the Senate convened and, after debate, voted 33 to 16 in favor of Johnson, marking the only instance in U.S. history where the Senate has elected a vice president.[33][34] Johnson was inaugurated as the ninth vice president on March 4, 1837, alongside Van Buren, and served until 1841, presiding over the Senate amid growing partisan tensions leading into the Panic of 1837.[35] The episode highlighted vulnerabilities in the electoral process to regional and personal scandals, though the Senate's swift resolution avoided prolonged deadlock.[32]

Analyses and Debates

Strengths and Defenses of the Contingent Election Mechanism

The contingent election mechanism, as outlined in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution (prior to the 12th Amendment) and refined by the amendment ratified on September 25, 1804, serves as a deliberate safeguard to resolve presidential elections lacking an Electoral College majority, channeling the decision to the House of Representatives where each state delegation casts a single vote.[36] Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 68 published on March 12, 1788, defended this process as a prudent contingency that empowers a body of representatives "capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station" to select from the top candidates the individual "who in their opinion may be best qualified for the office," thereby mitigating risks of "cabal, intrigue, and corruption" inherent in direct popular or less structured selections.[11] This design prioritizes merit-based deliberation over mere plurality, ensuring the executive emerges from informed legislative judgment rather than electoral fragmentation.[11] A core strength lies in its reinforcement of federalism, granting each state equal influence through one vote per delegation, which compels cross-regional consensus and prevents dominance by populous states or urban concentrations. This structure aligns with the Constitution's federal character, where the House—originally elected biennially by the people of the states, either at-large or by districts—functions as a proxy for state sovereignty, fostering a president with nationwide legitimacy beyond electoral vote tallies. Proponents argue this counters the potential for regional factionalism to yield a narrowly supported executive, as a candidate must secure majority state backing to prevail, promoting stability in a union of diverse interests.[11] Historically, the mechanism has proven effective in averting constitutional crisis, successfully electing John Quincy Adams on February 9, 1825, after the 1824 election produced no Electoral College majority (Andrew Jackson received 99 votes, Adams 84, Henry Clay 37, and William H. Crawford 41 out of 261 total). Similarly, Richard Mentor Johnson was chosen vice president by the Senate on February 8, 1837, after failing to receive a majority of electoral votes (147 out of 294) in the 1836 election due to faithless electors.[32] These instances demonstrate the process's capacity for orderly resolution without systemic breakdown, even amid partisan tensions, as Congress deliberated candidate qualifications and national needs rather than raw vote counts. Defenders further emphasize its role in upholding electoral integrity by providing a fallback that avoids indefinite deadlock or reliance on flawed alternatives like national popular vote tabulation, which could amplify turnout disparities or fraud vulnerabilities in unmanageable direct contests. By limiting choices to top electoral performers and requiring supermajority-like state alignment, the mechanism incentivizes broad coalitions, reducing the peril of presidents lacking cross-sectional support that might undermine governance efficacy.[11] This causal structure—electors as initial filter, House as deliberative arbiter—embeds redundancy against electoral anomalies, such as faithless electors or tied outcomes, ensuring continuity of republican selection.

Criticisms and Perceived Flaws

The contingent election process for the presidency requires the House of Representatives to select from the top three electoral vote recipients, with each state delegation casting a single vote regardless of its population or the size of its delegation, necessitating a majority of state votes (at least 26) for victory. This mechanism amplifies the influence of smaller states, as the vote of a delegation from Wyoming carries equal weight to that from California, deviating from the principle of one-person-one-vote and potentially enabling a candidate with fewer national popular votes to prevail.[37] Critics, including former Senator Mitch McConnell, have described this as "nonsense," arguing it undermines democratic legitimacy by prioritizing state parity over population representation.[38] Historical instances highlight perceived flaws in legitimacy and susceptibility to accusations of impropriety. In the 1824 contingent election, Andrew Jackson led with 41.4% of the popular vote and 99 electoral votes, yet John Quincy Adams secured the presidency after Speaker Henry Clay, eliminated in the top three, used his influence as Speaker to lobby representatives to vote for Adams in exchange for Adams appointing Clay as Secretary of State, prompting Jackson's charges of a "corrupt bargain."[39] Thomas Jefferson labeled the contingent process "the most dangerous blot in our constitution," foreseeing its potential to foster intrigue and erode public trust.[38] Such outcomes have fueled arguments that the system invites partisan horse-trading over voter intent, producing presidents lacking a popular mandate.[38] The procedure carries inherent risks of deadlock, particularly in a polarized Congress unable to achieve a state majority within the compressed timeline before Inauguration Day. If no president is elected, the Speaker of the House serves as acting president until resolution, while a vice-presidential contingent election proceeds simultaneously in the Senate, which requires a simple majority but could also stalemate, leaving the office vacant. Analysts warn that modern partisanship exacerbates these vulnerabilities, with limited constitutional guidance potentially leading to procedural disputes or prolonged uncertainty, as evidenced by near-deadlocks like the 1836 vice-presidential election where Richard Mentor Johnson prevailed only after one state abstained.[40] This opacity and potential for crisis are seen as outdated relics ill-suited to contemporary electoral dynamics.[38]

Modern Relevance and Risks

Discussions Surrounding Recent U.S. Elections (2020–2024)

In the 2020 election, discussions of a contingent election were more speculative and tied to hypothetical ties or third-party impacts, though Joe Biden secured 306 votes to Donald Trump's 232, avoiding any shortfall. Pre-election analyses noted risks from faithless electors or disputes under the Twenty-Third Amendment granting D.C. votes, potentially creating a 269-269 tie resolved by Congress.[41] Post-election challenges, including objections during the January 6, 2021, certification, focused on state results rather than denying a majority outright, but they amplified broader concerns about procedural vulnerabilities leading to House intervention.[42] The 2024 election generated significant pre-election commentary on contingent risks amid tight polling between Trump and Kamala Harris, with third-party candidacies like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s initially raising fears of vote fragmentation preventing 270 votes.[40] Analysts highlighted Republican advantages in a House contingent election, given GOP control of more state delegations, and scenarios like a tie triggering separate House and Senate votes for president and vice president.[43] Trump ultimately won 312-226 on November 5, 2024, rendering these discussions moot, but they emphasized ongoing polarization's potential to force archaic mechanisms in future contests.[44][45]

Potential for Deadlock or Crisis in Polarized Contexts

In a contingent presidential election, the U.S. House of Representatives votes by state delegation, with each of the 50 states casting a single vote based on the majority preference within its delegation; a candidate requires a majority of these votes—typically 26—to prevail. Deadlock occurs if no candidate secures this threshold after multiple ballots, as the Constitution mandates continued voting without a fixed endpoint, though practical pressures mount toward Inauguration Day. If unresolved by noon on January 20, the vice president-elect assumes acting presidential duties until a president is chosen; absent a vice president-elect, the Speaker of the House serves in that capacity, potentially installing an individual from the opposition party or none at all if the House remains unorganized. This succession lacks explicit constitutional deadlines for House action, heightening risks of prolonged uncertainty, as seen in historical precedents like the 1800 election's multi-day balloting. Polarization amplifies deadlock potential by solidifying partisan control over state delegations, reducing the flexibility for cross-party bargaining that resolved past contingencies.[40] As of the 119th Congress, Republican majorities dominate approximately 26 state delegations, with Democrats controlling around 22 and a few tied or competitive, creating an asymmetry where the minority party holds scant leverage to block or negotiate.[43] Tied delegations abstain from voting, effectively lowering the majority threshold but entrenching outcomes favoring the party with broader state-level dominance. In a fragmented Electoral College outcome—such as from third-party vote splits yielding no 270-electoral-vote majority—intense partisanship could prompt delegations to withhold support from non-preferred candidates, prolonging stalemates amid public pressure and institutional distrust.[40][46] Such scenarios risk broader crises, including governance vacuums or legitimacy challenges, particularly if the House lacks a Speaker at the January 3 convening, as procedural rules bar contingent voting without one.[47] Post-2020 election disputes underscored how polarization erodes norms, with potential for procedural maneuvers—like absenteeism or blank ballots—to force indefinite delays, undermining the constitutional timeline.[48] Analyses from nonpartisan observers highlight that unified single-party delegations, now prevalent in over 80% of states due to gerrymandering and sorting, diminish incentives for compromise, contrasting with earlier eras of coalition-building.[49] Without electoral reform, these dynamics could transform a rare mechanism into a flashpoint for instability, as delegations prioritize partisan purity over resolution.[40]

Reform Proposals

Historical Efforts to Alter Procedures

The Twelfth Amendment, ratified on June 15, 1804, in response to the 1800 presidential election's tie between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, reformed contingent election procedures by mandating separate Electoral College ballots for president and vice president to prevent intra-party ties that could trigger contingent elections. It also limited the House of Representatives' selection in a contingent election to the three candidates receiving the highest electoral vote totals, narrowing from the original five under Article II of the Constitution, while preserving the state-delegation voting method in the House. For the vice presidency, if no candidate receives a majority of vice-presidential electoral votes, the Senate selects the vice president from the two candidates with the highest numbers of such votes, introducing a separate contingent election process in the Senate conducted by individual member ballots. Prior to the Twelfth Amendment, after the president was determined—either by electoral majority or House selection—the vice president was the candidate with the second-highest overall electoral votes, with the Senate resolving ties among candidates with equal second-place votes.[50][6] The Twentieth Amendment, ratified on January 23, 1933, primarily sought to shorten the general lame-duck period between elections and the start of new terms for efficiency and to reduce uncertainties in government transitions, as motivated by Progressive Era concerns over governmental efficiency and events like the 1932 election transition.[51] This broader reform specifically altered contingent election procedures by shifting responsibility from the outgoing lame-duck Congress to the incoming one. Prior to its adoption, both congressional and presidential terms began on March 4, and the joint session of Congress to count the electoral votes was held on the second Wednesday in February,[52] meaning contingent elections were not held until approximately three months after the November election and were conducted by the outgoing lame-duck Congress during the lengthy period between presidential elections in November and inaugurations, creating risks of prolonged uncertainty if a contingent election extended unresolved; the amendment established congressional terms to commence on January 3 and presidential terms on January 20, with the House and Senate proceeding immediately to their respective contingent elections if no presidential majority is certified at the statutory January 6 joint session to count electoral votes, thereby holding contingent elections approximately two months after the November election and reducing the overall period of potential uncertainty from election day to resolution, and mandating that if the House of Representatives failed to elect a president by that date, the vice president-elect would discharge presidential duties until resolution, with Congress empowered to designate further succession if needed. This change mitigated risks of interim power vacuums without modifying core voting mechanisms in the House or Senate; however, risks of prolonged uncertainty persist if a contingent election remains unresolved, as the House process lacks a fixed limit on ballots and state-delegation voting could fail to produce a majority of 26 states.[51][50] In the 19th century, despite controversies surrounding contingent elections—such as the 1825 House selection of John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson, who led in both popular and electoral votes—no targeted amendments emerged to revise the state-delegation voting method in the House or individual balloting in the Senate. Reforms focused instead on preventing contingents through Electoral College modifications, like early proposals for direct popular election, reflecting dissatisfaction with state equality in House votes (one vote per state delegation regardless of population) but yielding no procedural changes to contingent processes.[50] Early 21st-century efforts built on longstanding critiques of the House's unit-rule voting, which amplifies small states' influence. In the 110th Congress (2007–2008), H.J. Res. 73, introduced by Representative Brad Sherman on September 25, 2007, sought to amend the Constitution to require individual House members to vote directly for president in contingents, needing a majority of votes cast with a quorum of a House majority, aiming to align outcomes more closely with national population proportions.[53] Similarly, H.J. Res. 75, introduced by Representative Virgil H. Goode Jr. on October 17, 2007, proposed the same shift but mandated a two-thirds quorum for greater deliberative threshold.[54] Both resolutions, referred to the House Judiciary Committee, advanced no further, underscoring persistent challenges in achieving consensus on altering a rarely invoked but constitutionally entrenched mechanism.

Contemporary Ideas and Challenges

In the early 21st century, reform proposals for the contingent election have centered on constitutional amendments to replace state delegation voting in the House with individual Representative votes, as outlined in H.J.Res. 73 and H.J.Res. 75 introduced during the 110th Congress in 2007.[53] [54] These measures aimed to require a majority of the full House for election, shifting power toward more populous states like California, which holds 52 Representatives compared to Wyoming's single seat, thereby reducing the equal-weight advantage for smaller states under the 12th Amendment.[9] Broader contemporary ideas seek to eliminate the contingent process entirely, proposing that the presidency go to the candidate with the most electoral votes absent a majority, supplemented by a national runoff or joint congressional vote tied to popular preferences.[55] Proponents argue this addresses the mechanism's inherent risks of deadlock—requiring 26 state delegations for a House majority among 50 states—and potential for partisan paralysis, as seen in simulations where evenly divided delegations could yield no outcome by Inauguration Day, January 20.[55] [48] Such reforms draw from historical precedents like the 1824 election but emphasize modern polarization, where third-party vote splits could trigger contingency without public mandate.[40] Enacting these changes faces formidable barriers, primarily the constitutional amendment process demanding two-thirds concurrence in both congressional chambers and ratification by 38 states, a standard no Electoral College modification has achieved since 1804.[56] Smaller states resist, as the current system amplifies their influence—one vote per delegation regardless of population—potentially blocking reforms that favor urban centers.[9] Partisan incentives further complicate efforts; major parties view contingency as remote until it arises, while post-2020 analyses prioritized Electoral Count Act revisions in 2022 to streamline certification objections rather than overhauling the 12th Amendment.[57] Procedural hurdles persist, including debates over open versus closed House sessions, vote transparency within delegations, and whether plurality suffices absent a majority rule, all unaddressed by statute and prone to litigation in a crisis.[9] Runoff alternatives raise logistical issues, such as rescheduling Election Day and added costs exceeding $1 billion based on prior estimates, alongside risks of diminished legitimacy for plurality winners lacking broad support.[55] Despite 2024 election warnings of contingency from independent candidacies, no dedicated legislation advanced, reflecting inertia against preempting rare events amid distrust in institutional reforms.[40]

Comparative Perspectives

Similar Electoral Contingency Mechanisms Abroad

In countries with direct presidential elections, a prevalent contingency mechanism is the two-round runoff system, which activates if no candidate secures an absolute majority (over 50%) in the first nationwide vote. Under this approach, the top two vote-getters advance to a second round, where the candidate with the most votes prevails, thereby ensuring a form of majority legitimacy. France exemplifies this: its Fifth Republic Constitution stipulates that the president is elected by direct suffrage for a seven-year term (reduced to five years in 2000), with a runoff if necessary, as implemented since the 1965 election when Charles de Gaulle faced François Mitterrand in the second round after no first-round majority. Similar provisions govern elections in Brazil, where the 1988 Constitution mandates a runoff between the leading candidates if none exceeds 50% plus one vote in the initial ballot, as occurred in every presidential contest from 1989 to 2022 except 2002 and 2018. This system prioritizes decisiveness while mitigating fragmented outcomes in multi-candidate fields, though it can favor frontrunners and disadvantage third parties. Indirect presidential elections in parliamentary systems often feature multi-round legislative voting with progressively lower thresholds to resolve impasses. In Germany, the president is selected by the Federal Convention—a body of Bundestag members and state delegates—requiring an absolute majority of votes cast in the first two ballots; failure triggers a third ballot decided by plurality, with ties resolved by drawing lots, per Article 54 of the Basic Law. This process, last invoked in extended voting during Frank-Walter Steinmeier's 2017 reelection (requiring four ballots), underscores a contingency designed for consensus in a fragmented assembly. Italy employs a comparable method: the president is elected by Parliament in joint session augmented by regional delegates, needing a two-thirds majority in the first three ballots and a simple majority thereafter, as outlined in Article 83 of the Constitution; prolonged balloting, such as the 57 rounds for Carlo Azeglio Ciampi in 1999, highlights the mechanism's resilience amid coalition divisions. Other democracies adapt similar legislative contingencies. In the Czech Republic, since shifting to indirect election in 2013, the president requires an absolute majority from a joint parliamentary session in the first three ballots, reverting to plurality afterward, preventing deadlock as seen in Miloš Zeman's contested 2013 selection. These mechanisms contrast with the U.S. model by emphasizing iterative negotiation within assemblies rather than state-delegated votes, often yielding compromise candidates in multiparty environments.

References

  1. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27#toc-amendment-xii
  2. Contingent Election of the President and Vice President by Congress
  3. Article 2 Section 1 Clause 3 | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov
  4. Article II | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
  5. https://docsteach.org/document/twelfth-amendment/
  6. U.S. Constitution, Amendment XII
  7. Amendment 12 – “Electing the President and Vice President”
  8. 12th Amendment | U.S. Constitution - Law.Cornell.Edu
  9. [PDF] Contingent Election of the President and Vice ... - Congress.gov
  10. Article II Section 1 | Constitution Annotated | Library of Congress
  11. The Federalist Papers : No. 68 - Avalon Project
  12. Why Was the Electoral College Created? - History.com
  13. Electoral College History | National Archives
  14. Why James Madison Wanted to Change the Way We Vote ... - FairVote
  15. Election of the President and Vice President by Congress
  16. Electoral College & Indecisive Elections - History, Art & Archives
  17. 1800 Electoral College Results | National Archives
  18. Creating the United States > Election of 1800 - Library of Congress
  19. Interpretation: The Twelfth Amendment | Constitution Center
  20. U.S. House Votes 37 Times to Break Tie - Annenberg Classroom
  21. The Presidential Election of 1800: A Story of Crisis, Controversy, and ...
  22. On this day: A tied presidential election ends in Washington
  23. "Jefferson is in every view less dangerous than Burr": Hamilton on ...
  24. The Election of 1824 | American Battlefield Trust
  25. 'Corrupt bargain' | Miller Center
  26. 1824 | The American Presidency Project
  27. 1824 Electoral College Results - National Archives
  28. The House of Representatives Elected John Quincy Adams as ...
  29. Richard M. Johnson (1837–1841) - Miller Center
  30. https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1836
  31. 1836 Electoral College Results - National Archives
  32. The day the Senate picked a U.S. vice president on its own
  33. The Senate Elects a Vice President
  34. Senate elects a vice president, Feb. 8, 1837 - POLITICO
  35. Vice President Richard Mentor Johnson - National Park Service
  36. The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription
  37. [PDF] What Comes After January 6? On the Contingent Congressional ...
  38. Contingent election: A detour from democracy - Deseret News
  39. The 1824 Presidential Election and the “Corrupt Bargain”
  40. Danger in Plain Sight: The Risk of Triggering a Contingent Election ...
  41. The 23rd Amendment and the chance of a tied 2020 presidential ...
  42. Clarifying the Possibility of a Contingent Election under the Twelfth ...
  43. Trump's Contingent-cy Plan - Sabato's Crystal Ball
  44. Presidential Election Results 2024: Electoral Votes & Map by State
  45. Contingent elections: what they are, and what to expect if 2024 ...
  46. [PDF] THE RISK OF A CONTINGENT ELECTION
  47. A Speaker-less House Does Not Stop the Presidential Transition
  48. Navigating Uncertainties in the Contingent Election Process - Lawfare
  49. The Rise of Single-Party US House Delegations - Smart Politics
  50. Contingent Election of the President and Vice President by Congress: History and Perspectives
  51. The Constitution: Amendments 11-27 | National Archives
  52. An Historical Analysis of the Electoral College
  53. https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-joint-resolution/73
  54. https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-joint-resolution/75
  55. [PDF] An Electoral College Compromise Constitutional Amendment
  56. Past Attempts at Reform - FairVote
  57. How the Electoral Count Reform Act changed Congress' process on ...
User Avatar
No comments yet.