Faithless electors scenario

[Mr. Morden]

If we had a scenario where Clinton won the popular vote but neither Clinton nor Trump won 270 EVs on election night (either because of a 269-269 tie or because of McMullin winning Utah), then I do actually think that we would have had enough #NeverTrump Republicans in the House to block Trump's selection, presumably handing the presidency to Pence (the House deadlocks and the Senate votes Pence).  But since Trump nominally won the election on election night, I don't think it works that way anymore.  In the present scenario, with Trump already having been considered the winner of the election for a month now, the anti-Trump Republicans in the House would hold their noses and vote for him, if there's a deadlock in the Electoral College.

[Mr. Morden]

The #2 reason is that such a move is Un-American and won't be received well by the American populace.

I agree with the latter part, but disagree with the first part.  There are plenty of un-democratic facets of "American democracy", including the electoral college.  And as Peter Beinart discusses here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/the-electoral-college-was-meant-to-stop-men-like-trump-from-being-president/508310/

many of the Founders saw preventing people like Donald Trump from becoming a president as a selling point of the electoral college.  So I don't see it as un-American if it's written into the American constitution.  Of course, that doesn't make it a good idea.

[Mr. Morden]

If we had a scenario where Clinton won the popular vote but neither Clinton nor Trump won 270 EVs on election night (either because of a 269-269 tie or because of McMullin winning Utah), then I do actually think that we would have had enough #NeverTrump Republicans in the House to block Trump's selection, presumably handing the presidency to Pence (the House deadlocks and the Senate votes Pence).  But since Trump nominally won the election on election night, I don't think it works that way anymore.  In the present scenario, with Trump already having been considered the winner of the election for a month now, the anti-Trump Republicans in the House would hold their noses and vote for him, if there's a deadlock in the Electoral College.

not how it works. in such a scenario, the house does multiple ballots until one of the candidates who received presidential (not vice-presidential) electoral votes receives a majority among the states' delegations (i.e. 26 states).

But what if no one ever gets 26 state delegations?  They could keep voting over and over with no one getting a majority.  In which case, doesn't the VP take over as acting president?

[Mr. Morden]

If we had a scenario where Clinton won the popular vote but neither Clinton nor Trump won 270 EVs on election night (either because of a 269-269 tie or because of McMullin winning Utah), then I do actually think that we would have had enough #NeverTrump Republicans in the House to block Trump's selection, presumably handing the presidency to Pence (the House deadlocks and the Senate votes Pence).  But since Trump nominally won the election on election night, I don't think it works that way anymore.  In the present scenario, with Trump already having been considered the winner of the election for a month now, the anti-Trump Republicans in the House would hold their noses and vote for him, if there's a deadlock in the Electoral College.

not how it works. in such a scenario, the house does multiple ballots until one of the candidates who received presidential (not vice-presidential) electoral votes receives a majority among the states' delegations (i.e. 26 states).

But what if no one ever gets 26 state delegations?  They could keep voting over and over with no one getting a majority.  In which case, doesn't the VP take over as acting president?

If there's no President elect, the VP elect becomes President at noon January 20th.

The Congressional GOP and the Establishment doesn't have the stones to run out the clock until then so there could be President Pence.  Or "Acting President" Pence.  He'd be the new John Tyler in that circumstance.

They don't *now*, no, because of the nature of Trump's win, and the fact that he's been president elect for over a month.  They're not going to do this on the basis of faithless electors.  But like I said, if there had been an EC deadlock not because of faithless electors, but because of either a 269-269 EV tie, or if McMullin had won Utah and both Clinton and Trump failed to get 270, then yes, I think that while a strong majority of Congressional Republicans would have voted Trump, there would have been enough #NeverTrump defectors to hand the presidency to Pence.