Let’s look at the 1824 election where Andrew Jackson won a plurality of the vote but not a majority. The other candidates were John Quincy Adams, son of 2nd president John Adams and Secretary of State; Henry Clay, the speaker of the House; and William Crawford, the Secretary of the Treasury. Prior to the vote in the House, a deal was struck between John Q Adams and Henry Clay. The deal was that if Clay could convince members of Congress to vote for Adams, Adams would then make Clay the Secretary of State which was, at that time, the heir apparent to the presidency. The scheme worked and Quincy Adams became the 6th president of the United States.
But wait! Bernie says that he’s in the race to the end. Hillary wins the nomination (Sanders has been saying all the super-delegates are bought) and seems like the heir apparent. However, Bernie says the system is rigged ( a recurring theme in his campaign and just shoot me), and he runs as a 4th party candidate, thus splitting the democratic vote.
As a result of the aforementioned, no one wins a majority of the electoral votes, and the election is now determined by the Republican controlled house that votes for Rubio who becomes the next president of the US.
I wouldn’t bet my house on the above scenario, but I see it as a distinct possibility.
Some of you may be asking, why am I blogging about the campaign if this is an economics blog? Simple, the next president will very much determine the economic path of the nation. If Sanders should get in (yes, just shoot me), expect economic Armageddon. If Hillary gets in, not as bad as Obama; Rubio, stabilization and I don’t have the slightest idea with Trump, but better than Sanders, Clinton or Obama (but the bar isn’t set very high with the previous three).