Electoral Roulette

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.