In the event of an electoral college tie, who does the House vote for?

[SteveRogers]

If they all vote along party lines, it would be Trump 30, Clinton 16. Iowa, Maine, Nevada, and New Jersey all have split delegations.

If Clinton somehow gets all the split delegations, she'd still need at least 6 Republican delegations to flip in order to win. Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida? It'd be a longshot.

Clinton's best strategy would be getting a faithless elector from DT to switch to her before the EC votes.

Bingo.  And it wouldn't particularly surprise me if she did, or, if it went to a 12th Amendment vote in congress, they just resolve to do nothing so that Ryan can be Acting President straight through to 2020.  Of course, the latter plan only works if Republicans hold the Senate, because a Dem Senate would put forward Hillary's VP, who would take precedence over Ryan. 

If Clinton won the popular vote, I could see an elector or two voting for her. If Clinton wins popular vote and the House just lets Ryan become Pres for 4 years, it's going to be a hell of a four years from both Dems and Trump supporters. This scenario seems way more problematic than delegates dumping Trump at the convention.

Actually, you need a numerical majority under the 12th Amendment.  The VP doesn't get to break ties, so a 50/50 senate just deadlocks indefinitely until someone defects.  I'm looking at you, Collins, Kirk and Manchin.

Are you saying Veep lied to me?

Yes, that season of Veep got several things wrong.

[SteveRogers]

If they all vote along party lines, it would be Trump 30, Clinton 16. Iowa, Maine, Nevada, and New Jersey all have split delegations.

If Clinton somehow gets all the split delegations, she'd still need at least 6 Republican delegations to flip in order to win. Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida? It'd be a longshot.

Clinton's best strategy would be getting a faithless elector from DT to switch to her before the EC votes.

Bingo.  And it wouldn't particularly surprise me if she did, or, if it went to a 12th Amendment vote in congress, they just resolve to do nothing so that Ryan can be Acting President straight through to 2020.  Of course, the latter plan only works if Republicans hold the Senate, because a Dem Senate would put forward Hillary's VP, who would take precedence over Ryan. 

If Clinton won the popular vote, I could see an elector or two voting for her. If Clinton wins popular vote and the House just lets Ryan become Pres for 4 years, it's going to be a hell of a four years from both Dems and Trump supporters. This scenario seems way more problematic than delegates dumping Trump at the convention.

Actually, you need a numerical majority under the 12th Amendment.  The VP doesn't get to break ties, so a 50/50 senate just deadlocks indefinitely until someone defects.  I'm looking at you, Collins, Kirk and Manchin.

From Article I:

"3.4 The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."

From Amendment 12:

"...and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice."

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/03/19/393658619/a-first-for-joe-biden-could-break-tie-for-attorney-general

Granted, Biden's vote was not needed to confirm Lynch, but if he could have used it to confirm a cabinet member, why couldn't he use it to vote for VP? The tie breaking vote in the Senate is an inherent power of the VP. If the 12th amendment specified otherwise, then ok. However, there is no mention of the VP not being able to break a tie in the Senate when voting for a new VP as a result of a high electoral college.

If the Senate is tied 50-50 between the two VP candidates, Biden would have the tie breaking vote assuming it happened before January 20th.

Because as you've just quoted, the 12th Amendment does specify otherwise. The Vice President doesn't get to cast a tie-breaking vote for VP in the event of an electoral college tie because "a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice." A majority of the whole number of what? Of senators. The Vice President, while President of the Senate, is not a senator. His tie-breaking power doesn't apply here for the same reason that it doesn't apply when the Senate votes to ratify a treaty; the Constitution sets a higher threshold for this specific scenario.

[SteveRogers]

If they all vote along party lines, it would be Trump 30, Clinton 16. Iowa, Maine, Nevada, and New Jersey all have split delegations.

If Clinton somehow gets all the split delegations, she'd still need at least 6 Republican delegations to flip in order to win. Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida? It'd be a longshot.

Clinton's best strategy would be getting a faithless elector from DT to switch to her before the EC votes.

Bingo.  And it wouldn't particularly surprise me if she did, or, if it went to a 12th Amendment vote in congress, they just resolve to do nothing so that Ryan can be Acting President straight through to 2020.  Of course, the latter plan only works if Republicans hold the Senate, because a Dem Senate would put forward Hillary's VP, who would take precedence over Ryan. 

If Clinton won the popular vote, I could see an elector or two voting for her. If Clinton wins popular vote and the House just lets Ryan become Pres for 4 years, it's going to be a hell of a four years from both Dems and Trump supporters. This scenario seems way more problematic than delegates dumping Trump at the convention.

Actually, you need a numerical majority under the 12th Amendment.  The VP doesn't get to break ties, so a 50/50 senate just deadlocks indefinitely until someone defects.  I'm looking at you, Collins, Kirk and Manchin.

It's the new senate that votes; Kirk won't be there.

This is where there could actually be an extra wrinkle. Under the law as it is now, the incoming senate would vote. But I don't think the Constitution mandates that result. If Dems take the Senate, the outgoing Republican congress could try to pass a law during the lame duck session to move up the counting of electoral votes to before January 3rd, thus allowing the outgoing congress to proceed to choose the President and Vice President.

[SteveRogers]

If they all vote along party lines, it would be Trump 30, Clinton 16. Iowa, Maine, Nevada, and New Jersey all have split delegations.

If Clinton somehow gets all the split delegations, she'd still need at least 6 Republican delegations to flip in order to win. Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida? It'd be a longshot.

Clinton's best strategy would be getting a faithless elector from DT to switch to her before the EC votes.

Bingo.  And it wouldn't particularly surprise me if she did, or, if it went to a 12th Amendment vote in congress, they just resolve to do nothing so that Ryan can be Acting President straight through to 2020.  Of course, the latter plan only works if Republicans hold the Senate, because a Dem Senate would put forward Hillary's VP, who would take precedence over Ryan. 

If Clinton won the popular vote, I could see an elector or two voting for her. If Clinton wins popular vote and the House just lets Ryan become Pres for 4 years, it's going to be a hell of a four years from both Dems and Trump supporters. This scenario seems way more problematic than delegates dumping Trump at the convention.

Actually, you need a numerical majority under the 12th Amendment.  The VP doesn't get to break ties, so a 50/50 senate just deadlocks indefinitely until someone defects.  I'm looking at you, Collins, Kirk and Manchin.

It's the new senate that votes; Kirk won't be there.

This is where there could actually be an extra wrinkle. Under the law as it is now, the incoming senate would vote. But I don't think the Constitution mandates that result. If Dems take the Senate, the outgoing Republican congress could try to pass a law during the lame duck session to move up the counting of electoral votes to before January 3rd, thus allowing the outgoing congress to proceed to choose the President and Vice President.

Obama would never sign it and Congress couldn't overturn the veto though.

True.