There is an unlikely but real chance that if the Presidential election is thrown into confusion after November 3, the U.S. House will decide the winner. And if that happens, Dems need to ensure that we control a majority of states’ Congressional delegations.
Wait, whaaaaaat? We know this sounds complicated and crazy — and it is! — but we’re here to help. In this post, we’ll explain how this scenario might occur, and what you can do right now to help ensure Biden gets elected if it does.
Bottom line: we found 7 key House candidates who will tip the balance in our favor if the crazy “House decides” scenario comes to pass. If we help these folks win, and this low-odds situation happens, then Dems will have the votes to elect Biden as President. Please give them a hand today!
Why might the House decide the Presidential winner — and how would that work?
If these were normal times, each state would certify its Electoral College representatives, the electoral votes would be counted, and the winners would be named as President- and Vice President-elect. But these aren’t normal times, and depending on how much mayhem ensues after the election, it’s possible — unlikely, but possible — that neither Trump nor Biden will have 270 unambiguously certified Electoral College votes when the ballots are tallied on January 6th.
As it turns out, there’s historical precedent for this situation, and there are processes in place to deal with it, mostly outlined in the 12th Amendment — see here, here, and here for longer discussions, and see our easy-reference table below for a quick summary. Barring some really crazy possible situations (see the end of the post), here’s a brief rundown:
The House would pick the President, by allowing each state’s Congressional delegation to cast a single vote. If a state’s delegation is split evenly, it doesn’t cast a ballot. It takes a majority (26 states) to win.
The Senate would pick the Vice President, by a simple majority vote. Because this would happen on January 6th, the current VP would cast the tie-breaker if needed.
If the House deadlocks, i.e., neither candidate gets 26 votes, then the Vice President chosen by the Senate would become the President by standard succession rules. (That person would then nominate a Vice President, who would go through the established confirmation process for a new VP.)
To be clear — this all assumes the Electoral College is in disarray on January 6th. One way to help prevent this whole situation is to minimize election shenanigans and ensure the results in November are complete and valid. To learn more about how to do this, check out our post on 4 ways Dems can help safeguard the 2020 election.
From a strategic point of view, there’s a case to be made that we don’t necessarily need 26 Dem states, as long as we prevent to GOP from getting 26 states. That makes sense if we assume that the Dems will decisively take the Senate, and deliver the VP slot to Harris if the House deadlocks. But in this analysis, we took a more conservative view, and asked what it would take for Biden to win outright via a 26-state victory in the House. How can we help Dems seal the deal?
How can we ensure Biden wins in the “House decides” scenario?
To figure out how we can tilt the balance toward Biden, we asked three questions:
What’s the “base case” outcome? To figure out what we’re up against, we calculated what would happen if Dems won all of the safe and likely D races, as well as those rated “leaning Democratic” and “Democratic toss-up”, but lost the rest. (We used Cook Political Report’s ratings as of 9/29/20, supplemented with info from Wikipedia as needed.) In that scenario, we found that Republicans would win 26 states to Dems’ 22 (with 2 ties, Michigan and Pennsylvania), and Trump would win the Presidency. In other words, we need to tilt 4 additional states toward Dems to elect Biden. (As noted above, if we tilt 3, then the House deadlocks.)
Which races could move the needle? So, we need to tilt 4 states — can we do that? Yes, we can! There are actually 6 states that switch from R to D if we win one or more of the 12 races currently rated as “Republican toss-up” or “leaning Republican”:
| State | Total Cong. seats | # we need to win the state | # rated "R tossup" or "lean R" | Key districts |
| Alaska | 1 | 1 | 1 | AK-at large |
| Florida | 27 | 1 | 1 | FL-15 |
| Michigan | 14 | 1 | 2 | MI-3, MI-6 |
| Montana | 1 | 1 | 1 | MT-at large |
| Pennsylvania | 18 | 1 | 2 | PA-1, PA-10 |
| Texas | 36 | 4 | 5 | TX-3, TX-10, TX-21, TX-22, TX-24 |
Which specific House candidates should we support to help Biden win in this scenario? One approach would be to support all 12 of the candidates above — and that’s not a bad idea. After all, the 6 states above are all “multi-word scores” in the sense that supporting House candidates also yields “up-ballot” benefits in competitive Senate races, Electoral College battlegrounds, or both.
But on the other hand, Texas stands out as the longest shot for Dems in the “House decides” scenario, because we’d need to win 4 of 5 races to flip the state’s delegation blue. The candidates in those races are all super, and deserve our support — but if we’re just looking at the specific strategy of getting Dems to 26 states, our dollars will go a lot further if we focus on the 7 candidates in the other 5 states.
So for prospective donors and volunteers, we think the most effective approach is to support the 7 flippable races in Alaska, Florida, Michigan, Montana, and Pennsylvania.
Which specific candidates should we support to bolster the “House decides” strategy?
Here’s a quick rundown on the 7 fabulous candidates on our “House decides” ActBlue slate, presented here in alphabetical order by state. For each, we’ve also provided some context on polling and fundraising — see our prior “Hold the House” analysis for detailed explanation and methods.
1. AK-At Large (Alyse Galvin)
Almost 60 percent of registered voters in Alaska are unaffiliated with a major party, so it’s no surprise that Galvin, an independent, won the Democratic primary in a landslide. The education activist is back for a rematch against Republican Don Young, who is seeking his 25th (!) term. Don’t let the hunting-and-wilderness vibe fool you: Alaska is moving away from the GOP, and Galvin’s contest has obvious synergy with the tight Senate race in which independent Al Gross is seeking to unseat Republican Dan Sullivan. (Polling -2% (7/8/20; B); 2018 D margin: -6%; D/R funding 154%; $5 per capita)
2. FL-15 (Alan Cohn)
Investigative journalist Cohn’s strong fundraising has turned this district between Tampa and Orlando into a prime Dem pick-up opportunity, and the DCCC has put Cohn on its “Red to Blue” list. He’s running against municipal official Scott Franklin, who bested current office-holder Ross Spano in the wake of the incumbent’s campaign finance shenanigans. Statewide, support for Cohn could help tip Florida into the blue column, and deliver the Electoral College to Biden outright. (Polling -7% (9/6/20; B); 2018 D margin: -6%; D/R funding 145%; $2 per capita)
3. MI-3 (Hillary Scholten)
Scholten, an Obama-era DOJ alum, is taking on grocery chain heir Peter Meijer for Justin Amash’s now-open seat in western Michigan. Despite Amash’s prior large-margin wins and Scholten’s fundraising deficit, many observers think this race is neck and neck. And with a Senate seat and Michigan’s 16 Electoral College votes also in play, this is a clear “triple word score” opportunity for Dems. (No recent, high-quality polls; 2018 D margin: -11%; D/R funding 68%; $4 per capita)
4. MI-6 (Jon Hoadley)
Fred Upton won most of his 17 races for this seat by wide double-digit margins. But his 5-point squeaker in 2018 signals trouble for the moderate Republican in this southwestern Michigan district that spans a slew of mostly white counties, as well as more diverse Kalamazoo. Hoadley trails in the money hunt, but the relatively low total fundraising so far makes this a “sleeper” pickup opportunity for Dems. Support for Hoadley will likely trickle up to Gary Peters’s crucial Senate campaign, as well as down to the flippable state leg. Note: Hoadley is also one of our top 9 “Hold the House” picks for 2020; see here for details. (No recent, high-quality polls; 2018 D margin: -5%; D/R funding 152%; $5 per capita)
5. MT-At large (Kathleen Williams)
This open-seat race pits Williams, a former state legislator, against state Auditor Matt Rosendale. The GOP has held the seat for 26 years, but this may be the turnaround year: Williams lost to the incumbent by 5 in 2018, and currently has a slight polling lead. And up-ballot, Democrat Steve Bullock is in a dead heat in his quest to win one of the key Senate races this cycle. (Polling +3% (9/16/20; A+); 2018 D margin: -5%; D/R funding 104%; $7 per capita)
6. PA-1 (Christina Finello)
Moderate two-term incumbent Brian Fitzpatrick is tough to paint as Trumpy,but redistricting has shifted this Buck’s County district from R+0.2 to D+2. This opens the door for Finello, a municipal housing official who made the DCCC’s “Red to Blue” list. Republicans have poured in money to defend this seat, but Finello could get a boost from up-ballot as Biden widens his lead in the Presidential race in Pennsylvania. (No recent, high-quality polls; 2018 D margin: -3% (vs. Fitzpatrick in PA-8); D/R funding 23%; $5 per capita)
7. PA-10 (Eugene DePasquale)
This south-central Pennsylvania district that includes Harrisburg and York was deep-red for years, but after redistricting in 2018 … not so much. Republican Scott Perry’s margin in his inaugural race here in 2018 was below 3 points, a somewhat unimpressive showing in a Trump +9 (post-redistricting) district. DePasquale, the state’s Auditor General, is neck-and-neck with Perry, and the funding and spending race is roughly even as well. In terms of synergy, the state is a keystone (see what we did there?) for the Electoral College, and down-ballot, Pennsylvania’s state legislature is one of the most flippable in the nation after big Dem gains in 2018. Note: DePasquale is also one of our top 9 “Hold the House” picks for 2020; see here for details. (No recent, high-quality polls; 2018 D margin: -3% (vs. Perry in PA-4); D/R funding 74%; $6 per capita)
Coda: Closing points and caveats
It’s important to note that this whole “House decides” thing is a political and legal morass, full of “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns”. If you want to get deeply into the weeds on this topic, check out this excellent and thorough (i.e., long!) article by Edward Foley of Ohio State University, “Preparing for a Disputed Election”.
Most importantly, a lot of shenanigans at the state level could throw things into complete disarray. There could be disputes about who won a state’s Electoral College votes, as well as who won individual House or Senate races. In many of these cases, it’s unclear what would actually happen. (Among other problems, the Electoral Count Act of 1887 is a hot mess of ambiguity and passive-voice constructions.) Depending on the party affiliation of a particular state’s Legislative and Executive branches, we could see all sorts of situations unfold over the winter.
Second, there are some positively bonkers scenarios that are academically possible, but outside our scope here as non-experts. For example: the 12th Amendment says that a 2/3 quorum is needed for the Senate to vote on the Vice President. So if the House deadlocks on the President, AND the Dems refuse to show up for quorum in the Senate, then … hello, President Pelosi? This seems highly unlikely, but these are crazy times, so it seems remiss not to at least acknowledge that there are all sorts of “black swan” possibilities outside this discussion.
Third, we’ve focused here on a path to 26 states for the Dems. But it’s important to note that even if we don’t reach that goal, there are many scenarios in which we will have prevented the GOP from reaching that threshold. And as noted, if the House deadlocks, the Senate becomes important — which may be fine for us, if we decisively win control of the upper chamber.
Finally, it’s not even clear if the “House decides” scenario could even come to pass. If, for example, Pennsylvania’s 20 Electoral College votes are disputed and ruled invalid, there is a line of legal reasoning that assigns victory to the winner of the majority of seated Electors, i.e., 260/518 (instead of the usual 270/538).
Bottom line: before this is all over, we’ll all be armchair election Constitutional law scholars (in addition to armchair epidemiologists). Buckle up.
Fundraising data from FEC.gov as of 9/2/20. Polling data from fivethirtyeight.com as of 10/3/20.
Special thanks to Nancy Altman for inspiring us to write this piece, and to her and Chip Lupu for their helpful input and advice.
Photo by Andrea Piacquadio from Pexels