Electoral Roulette

By LAURENCE I. BARRETT WASHINGTON

EACH TIME AN INDEPENDENT PRESIdential prospect rises above asterisk standing, an alarm shrieks on Capitol Hill. Sure enough, Ross Perot's strong showing in polls has prompted dozens of legislators to ask the Congressional Research Service for a memorandum on the roles the House and Senate play if no ticket wins a majority of the 538 electoral votes. The dry legalisms make that process sound easy: the House would pick the President from the top three candidates, while the Senate would select the Vice President from the leading two. But the politics of the issue are more complex and potentially scary.

Iowa Congressman Jim Leach sees possible deadlock in the House and weird maneuvering in the Senate. "The chemistry cannot be understood in advance," he warns. Arkansas Senator David Pryor fears a "constitutional crisis" in which a discredited Congress would be seen as usurping the voters' will. That happened after the 1824 election, when the House chose John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson in a four-way contest. As recently as 1968, when George Wallace ran as an independent, the country had a close call. Had Wallace won about 60,000 more votes in three states, neither Richard Nixon nor Hubert Humphrey would have won an electoral majority.

If the popular vote in November sets up a stalemate, it is possible that the candidates would try to woo some of the Electoral College members, who meet in their respective state capitals in mid-December to cast their official votes. These electors are local political activists who run on slates chosen by each ^ candidate's organization. Though some states try to bind electors to vote for their nominee, these laws are not enforced when electors bolt. Still, party and personal loyalty would probably keep the vast majority faithful.

If the election goes to the House, the Democrats would have a nominal advantage. Conventional wisdom suggests that partisanship would also steer each chamber of Congress. But that might not hold. In the present House, Democratic-controlled delegations outnumber Republican ones by a ratio of 3 to 1.

But it is the new House, elected in November, that would deal with the question. The G.O.P. is likely to gain seats in the fall, so more state delegations may be evenly split. Because each state has only one vote and a majority of 26 states is required, a decision could be elusive.

California Democrat Howard Berman predicts that many members would be torn among three choices: following their party, their home districts or the way their state voted. As Berman sees it, Perot could benefit if Bill Clinton fares poorly in the popular vote. "A lot of members," Berman says, "might prefer this diamond in the rough to four more years of gridlock with Bush." To some legislators, every option could taste like political hemlock. Ducking the decision equals cowardice. Backing a candidate unpopular at home risks constituents' wrath. Crossing party lines imperils any politician's future in public office.

In the absence of a verdict in the House, the Vice President selected by the Senate would serve as President starting Jan. 20. He would become the actual President if the House stalemate lasted indefinitely. Each Senator has a vote, and a majority of the 100-member body is necessary. On Jan. 6, when the action would start, Dan Quayle would still be Vice President. In his constitutional role as president of the Senate, he could preside over the session dealing with his fate. Legal experts are uncertain, however, whether Quayle could cast a decisive tie-breaking vote on this question, as he can on legislation.

Democrats are expected to maintain control in the new Senate. But if the Democratic ticket runs third in the national election, its vice-presidential candidate would not be considered by the Senate, which must pick between the top two. The wildest scenario kicking around the Capitol envisions the Bush and Perot slates coming in first and second, the House deadlocking and Senate Democrats preventing action in their chamber. They could avoid an unpalatable choice between the G.O.P. and Perot's forces by refusing to provide the necessary quorum. In that most improbable event, the Speaker of the House (currently Tom Foley) would take over as President. Occupying the White House under such dubious circumstances would be nothing less than a political nightmare.

Even in the absence of an important independent candidate, the vagaries of the Electoral College system permit the victory of a nominee who runs second in the popular vote. That occurred in 1888 and almost happened again in 1976. Because Perot's effort has focused attention on the process, Pryor has reintroduced a constitutional amendment providing for popular election of the President and Vice President. The House approved that proposal in 1969, but the Senate quashed it. Today's lawmakers, and the country at large, may pay a high price for that rejection next January.