Election process if no one gets a majority in the Elec College?

[Ryan]

In Presidential elections if no one gets a majority of electoral votes it goes to the house of reps. However I understand its not a simple vote. Each delegation casts one vote, which is determined by the will of the majority of the delegation).

(I'm not 100% sure about this but if its true its throws up some interesting possibilities. In the 2000 election, if the House decided it (and all party members voted for their party’s candidate) then Gore would have won Texas, Mississippi and North Dakota while Bush would have won Connecticut & Delaware among others. :)Incidentally in such an election Bush would have won as the GOP holds most state delegations.

Still not 100% on the whole thing though, can anyone confirm or expand on the above?

[Ryan]

thanks for confirming that. Does anyone know what happens if a delegation is evenly split between candidates? That would actually happen in several cases right now. How does the delegations one vote get decided?

[Ryan]

I still havent got a reply to the main questions and would be very keen to know.
I'm gonna state em again just so its clear what I'm asking.

A) We have confirmed that each state gets a single vote decided by the delegation. Does anyone know what happens if a delegation is evenly split between candidates? That would actually happen in several cases right now. eg. In Mississippi the GOP and dems each have two reps.
 How does the delegations one vote get decided?

B) What happens if the house is split 25-25 on the top two candidates?


C) While I'm at it, does anyone know who gets control of the House if its split 50-50. Right now there are 435 seats so either party should have a majority of at least 218 but suppose one member refuses to vote or dies and the house is split 217-217, What happens?
The senate provision for Vice-Pres deciding vote is well known but I've never heard of any provision for an even split in the house.

Could anyone at least point me to where I could get answers for these??? I havent found any on the net?

[Ryan]

Good answers, Thanks These questions were beginning to piss me off. I hope everyone realises they are very much still a possibility in the near future.

One thing I still have to clarify. Your answers on the House majority process assumes there will always be an odd number of members so someone has to have a majority. There have been many congresses in the past when there were even numbers.

23rd   1834-1835   240
24th   1835-1837   242
25th   1837-1839   242
26th   1839-1841   242
27th   1841-1843   242
Just to name a few. Btw if the proposal to give DC a full seat works out ..........right away there will be 436 members and a chance for a 218-218 split.

Also you havent noted that a sitting member (especially an independent)
may choose not to vote for speaker leaving an even split. What happens then? Anyone have an idea??

[Ryan]

Are you suggesting that Bernie might cause trouble

LOL no, although he has been chafing at the bit of late. He complains that the dems are treating him like a Junior member of their own party and not as an important congressional ally. Still I dont see him jumping ship anytime soon.

I was suggesting that in the future a fiercely independent member might refuse to vote for either partys nominee regardless of inducements. However just as likely a conservative democrat like Ralph Hall or liberal republican like Jim Leach might refrain from casting a vote in case of a split. What happens then??

[Ryan]

Well, here is a not so unlikely 2004 result: if Bush loses WV and NH, arguably outside of FL the two states he is most likely to lose, then the result is a 269 to 269 tie!  No EV majority and it goes to the House, unless one faithless elector switches before the Electoral College votes in Dec.  
I think tremendous pressure will be generated for one elector to switch to the popular vote winner and save us from a Constitutional crisis.

I don't foresee either an elector defecting or a constitutional crisis.

Electors are nowadays chosen very very carefully and its at least 100 to one against anyone "bolting".

As to the crisis bit the scenarios we discussed above are only if the house delegations are divided 25-25. That is not the case right now. The GOP holds over 30 state delegations so a GOP victory is all but guaranteed.
Incidentally it is the current congress not the one elected in 2004 which would decide a tie so even for those dems with hopes of a congressional sweep in 2004 it wont help you elect a President from the house.

[Ryan]

If the House is evenly divided on the vote for Speaker I believe (but am not entirely sure) that the old Speaker would continue to hold the office until the tie could be broken. Either that, or the Speakership may be completely vacant until the tie can be broken. The Constitution seems unclear on this.
 

File this under "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it".  

Well, if there is no clear constituational provision, thats what we are gonna have to do anyway. Still its disconcerting that the lower house will be in limbo if such an event were to occur.  I think its unlikely this decade but with the country so evenly divided and both parties working so desperately for every seat, its not impossible.

Of course for it to happen this decade (since there is an odd no of representatives)  in the future a fiercely independent member might refuse to vote for either partys nominee regardless of inducements. However just as likely a conservative democrat like Ralph Hall or liberal republican like Jim Leach might refrain from casting a vote in case of a split.

[Ryan]

Thanks for the Correction. My mistake was in the date electoral votes are counted

Actually, it would be the new House, not the old, that would elect the President, since the House is sworn in on Jan. 3 and the Electoral College votes aren't certified until Jan. 6, so the vote in the House and Senate for President and Vice President would occur with the newly elected Congress.

[Ryan]

Still would be a member, maybe just not speaker.

No person may hold any other office while President.

Therefore, if the Speaker became President he would have to resign from both the office of Speaker AND U.S. Representative.

I think what the dude was trying to say was that even tho the speaker WOULD have to resign from both the office of Speaker AND U.S. Representative; he would presumably win the special election that would be held soon after and thus regain his seat.

To this I would add that an arrangement would be made by which only an interim speaker would be installed and the Ex-President former speaker wqould be reinstated as soon as he regained his House seat.

Such arrangements are frequently made when for instance a senior member leaves to run for another office> it is often understood that if he/she fails in that bid and returns to the house he/she would regain his/her position.
I expect the same would apply to the Speaker.