Some questions about electoral ties

[nini2287]

Let's say in a Presidential Election, no candidate gets a majority of electoral votes so the election is thrown to the house:

-What if there is a tie within an individual state's house delegation over whom that state should award its electoral votes.

-What if the result of the House vote is 25-25?

[True Federalist]

While the Constitution doesn't make it absolutely clear, presumably they would use the precedent from the 1800 election. (The 1824 election produced no tied State delegations, and 1876 was a dispute over which electoral votes were valid.) While the Twelfth Amendment did make some changes in how the election would be conducted, it left unaltered the method of election in the House should it be up to it to decide, so the precedent should hold.  For 35 ballots, the result was 8 states Jefferson, 6 states Burr, 2 states tied and no result.  Thus to be elected in the House, you need a majority of the Representatives of a majority of States. Assuming a straight party line vote, the current House would go 30-17-3 for the GOP.


Because the Democratic strength in the House comes largely fom dominating the California and New York delegations by large margins while the GOP controls most of its delegations by slender margins, the Dems fare poorly in an electoral vote tie.

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

I believe -

If a state delegation is tied on whom they will support for President, if that state delegation makes no decision by the time of the voting, then that state abstains or casts an undecided vote.

The new House would elect a Speaker before voting for President.  The Speaker does not participate in his state's delegation voting.

If the result of the vote in the House for President is 25 states-25 states, then the Speaker, as elected by the House, casts the deciding vote.

[True Federalist]

The Speaker does not get to break ties.  The constitutional requirement is a majority of State delegations, not one half plus the Speaker.  Also, the House of Representatives is not the Senate.  The Speaker has no vonstitutionally mandated tie-breaking vote in any circumstances.  Nor is it the House of Commons where by tradition the Speaker votes only when needed to break a tie.

[jerusalemcar5]

While the Constitution doesn't make it absolutely clear, presumably they would use the precedent from the 1800 election. (The 1824 election produced no tied State delegations, and 1876 was a dispute over which electoral votes were valid.) While the Twelfth Amendment did make some changes in how the election would be conducted, it left unaltered the method of election in the House should it be up to it to decide, so the precedent should hold.  For 35 ballots, the result was 8 states Jefferson, 6 states Burr, 2 states tied and no result.  Thus to be elected in the House, you need a majority of the Representatives of a majority of States. Assuming a straight party line vote, the current House would go 30-17-3 for the GOP.


Because the Democratic strength in the House comes largely fom dominating the California and New York delegations by large margins while the GOP controls most of its delegations by slender margins, the Dems fare poorly in an electoral vote tie.

I wouldn't assume a party line vote.  I think many represenatives would either voe based on how their district or more likely how their state voted.  This would still favor the Republicans though since they dominate the small western states.

[True Federalist]

A party line vote is a useful starting point. One would need a lot of political cover to not do so in a delegation where your party was the majority, either because of a lopsided popular vote or a pre-election agreement to follow either the state or national PV in deciding how to vote in a House election.  Except when a third-party candidate such as Wallace threatens to spoil the two-patry system, those sorts of agreements aren't typically made in advance.  At a minimum, the Dems need at least 5 state delegations to no longer be controlled by the GOP in order for them to have a hope of winning in the House after an EV tie.

[Vasall des Midas]

What's that to say, Ernest? "o-oh, Joe is back!" ?

[Emsworth]

-What if there is a tie within an individual state's house delegation over whom that state should award its electoral votes.

The Constitution requires that "a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice" (Amdt. XII), implying that, in order to win, a candidate must win (not just tie) a majority of the state delegations.

-What if the result of the House vote is 25-25?

The House must vote again, until it can reach a decision. If the House is unable to reach a decision by Inauguration Day (January 20), then the Twentieth Amendment states that the Vice President becomes Acting President until the House can decide.

[nini2287]

What if the result of the House vote is 25-25?

The House must vote again, until it can reach a decision. If the House is unable to reach a decision by Inauguration Day (January 20), then the Twentieth Amendment states that the Vice President becomes Acting President until the House can decide.

Would this be the outgoing Vice President?

[J. J.]

What if the result of the House vote is 25-25?

The House must vote again, until it can reach a decision. If the House is unable to reach a decision by Inauguration Day (January 20), then the Twentieth Amendment states that the Vice President becomes Acting President until the House can decide.

Would this be the outgoing Vice President?

IIRC, no.  The Senate could elect a Vice President, but if it couldn't, my guess would be the Speaker would be acting president.

[True Federalist]

What if the result of the House vote is 25-25?

The House must vote again, until it can reach a decision. If the House is unable to reach a decision by Inauguration Day (January 20), then the Twentieth Amendment states that the Vice President becomes Acting President until the House can decide.

Would this be the outgoing Vice President?

IIRC, no.  The Senate could elect a Vice President, but if it couldn't, my guess would be the Speaker would be acting president.

He'd be first in line to be acting President, but he'd be insane to accept it unless he were very sure that the House and Senate would both never come to an agreement since he would have to resign his seat in order to become acting President.  The same for the President pro tem.  Haig wasn't as stupid as some people thought he was for saying that he was in charge until they got hold of the VP when Reagan was shot.