Faithless electors scenario

[jman123]

What would happen, hypothetically, if enough faithless electors vote for say Kasich or McMullen and Trump falls below 270 . Is Trump guaranteed presidency in the House or is he not the most popular guy among GOP congressmen and therefore not a sure lock?

[Nym90]

We would be in uncharted territory. However, there would be tremendous pressure on the GOP House members to elect Trump.

[Axel Foley]

Would it be only a Trump-Clinton race or a Trump-Clinton-3rd most voted in EC?( probably Kasich, according to the dump Trump effort by some electors).

[RI]

Would it be only a Trump-Clinton race or a Trump-Clinton-3rd most voted in EC?( probably Kasich, according to the dump Trump effort by some electors).

Top three

[kyc0705]

The election is thrown to the House, who will most likely elect Trump or face a you-know-what-storm of unprecedented proportions.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If Trump were at 280 EV, maybe.  He's over 300; this ship has sailed.

[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.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Trump could have been stopped at the convention.  He could have been forced off the ticket at certain points along the way.  A Faithless Elector strategy could, technically, still work.

The #1 reason this didn't (and won't) happen is that the GOP Establishment lacks the grit to pull this off.  They lacked the grit when they didn't like Trump at all, and they have even less of it now because the Republican Party loves a winner, and the various factions are making their accomodations with Trump.

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

[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.

[dax00]

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).

[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?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

[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.