Order of House/Senate votes in event of no EC majority

[SPC]

Just hypothetically assume that Romney wins the election 270-268, and then a faithless elector decides to throw the election to a Republican Congress by voting Paul Ryan for President and Mitt Romney for Vice-President. Would the vote between Obama, Romney, and Ryan in the House of Representatives take place before or after the vote between Biden and Ryan in the Senate? Would there be anything precluding Ryan from winning both elections, in which case he would have to appoint a VP with approval from both houses of Congress? Keep in mind the individuals in this scenario are interchangeable and merely selected for convenience. Any scenario like this would be incredibly unlikely from the start.

[J. J.]

I would not see a constitutional violation.  The only example I can think of is Kissinger serving as both National Security Adviser and Secretary of State at the same time, which is close.

One possible scenario:  Romney gets involved some scandal.  The GOP wins big in the Senate.  Everybody is happy with Ryan as president, but the GOP in the Senate want a Republican VP.  Their only constitutional choice is Ryan.

Ryan accepts the VP position, holds i for a day, and resigns.  Ryan can appoint a VP, subject to confirmation.

Just to complicate matters, there would be no constitution problem with Ryan serving as Speaker while president.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Neither the Constitution nor Federal law specifies the order in which the voting is done, likely because unless for some reason they are unable to come to a decision before noon of the 20th of January, it doesn't matter which votes first.

As for JJ's scenario unless the Romney scandal broke after the electoral college met, it would be trivial for the electors to arrange for someone else to get enough vice presidential votes to be elected vice president without having to go through a Congressional election.

Nor would there be a need for Ryan to hold the office of Vice President for even one day.  Federal law allows for a President-elect or a Vice President-elect to refuse the office in which case it is treated as a vacancy.

[J. J.]

Nor would there be a need for Ryan to hold the office of Vice President for even one day.  Federal law allows for a President-elect or a Vice President-elect to refuse the office in which case it is treated as a vacancy.

That would trigger the Congressional election of the VP.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Nor would there be a need for Ryan to hold the office of Vice President for even one day.  Federal law allows for a President-elect or a Vice President-elect to refuse the office in which case it is treated as a vacancy.

That would trigger the Congressional election of the VP.

No it would not.  The situation is that Ryan is elected both President and Vice President, refuses the Vice Presidency thus creating a vacancy as of noon on January 20, which then allows President Ryan to nominate a replacement VP under the 25th amendment.  You do have awful problem with reading comprehension at times.

[Harry Hayfield]

Slightly similar question, if there is a 269 - 269 tie after all the states have been projected, what would happen if an elector (trying to get his name up in lights) says "I was elected to vote for one candidate, but believe that the other candidate is better!". If he came from a state where this was not allowed (I can't remember right away which states don't allow electors to vote for whichever candidate they want to) would that elector be sacked and as a result that state be one elector short?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As I understand it, right now only two of the states that have faithless elector laws that absolutely prohibit them from casting their votes except as they pledged to cast them.  The other states with such laws instead fine the elector if he fails to cast his vote as pledged, but do not absolutely prohibit a changed vote.  And not all states have faithless elector laws.

The validity of such laws has not been tested in the courts, tho requiring electors to make such a pledge has been tested and been found valid.

Also, most states have provisions for alternate electors in the event that the primary elector is unable to perform his function for whatever reason, so being a vote short is not a probable result.