Talk Elections

What if:
Election night....In a race that beats the 2000 nuthouse the presidential elections will go to the house.
all network predictions are 269-269 tie:

()

final result:
Kerry - 48.762%
Bush - 48.761%
Nader - 2.00%
all others - 0.477%

everybody preperd for the house, BUT On on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December one elector - does not matter which party - votes for the other guy. 270-268

what is America reaction

If it is a Democrat shifting, riots in DC.

If it is a Republican changing, riots in Houston.

People would not be happy at all, and a new election would be called for-and no matter who the beneficiary was, I would support it (Especially if it went to Bush, though, for two reasons: 1. I'm a Democrat. 2. In the scenario Kerry won the popular vote. As I said, UI would still campaign for a new election even if it did favor Kerry though).

Well, one DC elector abstained from voting last election (to protest DC not having congressional representation), so it could happen again, I guess.

yeah, and in 76' and in 88'

what exactly are the rules...is it the house of the full congress?  Isnt it by delegation and not a straight vote?

There would be madness, chaos, calls for punitive damages, and laywers' phones ringing off the hooks.  Every tv in tvland would be tuned to CNN for the latest update (which would contain exactly the same information as the last latest update five minutes ago).  There would be legisation introduced to amend the constitution's electoral process.  Babies screaming, old ladies crying, and George and John making speeches on TV.  Clinton would be sought out for an "expert opinion" on the matter.

For about five minutes.  Then Clinton would go back to his cheeseburgers and fries and interns, and the rest of us would return to more important matters like the WWF smackdown, monster truck shows, sushi, nihilist poetry readings, pillowfights, and laundry.

lol

In the case of a tie, each of the fifty states gets one vote.  Majority wins.  That's pretty much it.

But in the case of an irregularity suchas that described above by dunn.  You pretty much live with it.  End of debate.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

not just a tie Angus, even if its 269-200-69 or whatever, when there is no majority in ev

right.  anything less than a majority (270 since 1960) doesn't win.  and I imagine in the case of the 269 all which you describe, during the several weeks between election night and the *real* election night, many phones will be ringing, many checkbooks will be opened, and many favors recalled.  Both sides will be doing their homework.  

Should that fail, of course, it goes into the house.  Bush wins.

If one candidate was clearly ahead, even if it WAS Bush, I'd support him.

If it was 269-269, which states would vote for whom?

I'll be back :p

its up there on my map

that requires some homework.  I'm about to take a bicycle ride.  It's 69 and sunny in my little piece of suburbia.  I imagine you'd have to be *really* wealthy and powerful, even by American standards, to buy off even a small state's legislative assembly.  So just look at majorities in each legislature.  I believe there are more reps than dems.

Thus, either way, Bush wins.  :)

i believe that it is the US congressional delegation that votes (not state assemblies)

I am curious how many state delegations are different than this map. I do think it would cause riots in the streets of a given state if the reps from that state voted differently than their state's popular vote.


I do think a tie is quite a possibility. W. Virginia and N. Hampshire are at this point lean Kerry.

The interesting thins is if a state delegation is tied... :D

If what you're asking is which states would vote for whom in the House of Representatives if the electoral vote were tied 269-269, then of course the answer depends on the results of the congressional elections. The majorities of the different delegations are:

- Republican: 30
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Florida
- Georgia
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Michigan
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Mexico
- North Carolina
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Pennsylvania
- South Carolina
- Utah
- Virginia
- Wyoming

- Democrat: 14
- Arkansas
- California
- Hawaii
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- New Jersey
- New York
- North Dakota
- Oregon
- Rhode Island
- Tennessee
- Washington
- West Virginia

- Independent: 1
- Vermont (will probably vote Democrat)

- Tied, Democrat & Republican: 5
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- South Dakota (only seat, previously held by Rep. Janklow, vacant)
- Texas (will probably vote Republican)
- Wisconsin

If the state of the parties does not change (unlikely), the Republicans would win in the House of Representatives.

then they seat until a decition

I know, there's no tie-breaker...now, let's assume that the Dems win back a couple of state delqagtions (unlikely, I know) making it 25-25. THEN what ahppens? ;)

DELEGATES
KERRY
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Is.

BUSH
-

STATES
BUSH
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Utah
Wyoming

KERRY
Arkansas
California
DC
Hawaii
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York
North Dakota
Oregon
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Washington
West Virginia

TIE
Minnesota
Mississippi
Texas
Wisconsin

INDEPENDENT
Vermont

UNKNOWN
South Dakota

So a firm win to Bush if it goes to the house :(

You COULD try and win it back... ;) then again, maybe not... :(

Damn you Ensworth :D

I just spent 15 minutes trawling through the office of the clerk of the house findind party affiliation of every state...oh well.

Remember the Jefferson-Burr election? The House of Representatives voted again and again, and after 36 ballots, finally elected Jefferson.

Yeah, I was wondering why you posted that same thing... ;)

Yeah, I watched that one on CNN... ;)

I didn't know there were numerous votes in the House that time, no. But with today's party structure what would break a tie? Imagine a Rep. giving the presidency to the other party...he would get SO hated.

The delegations composed of delegates (see top of quoted passage) do not vote in the House. The District of Columbia, represented by a single delegate, does not have a vote either. Only the fifty states may vote.

PS: My apologies for preempting your post of the list.

if a state's pv is dem and the representatives majority is rep (or vice versa), woudnt you say it's their obligation to vote by the state's pv

I know the delegates don't have a vote, but I though I should include them just to show that they are all Democrat ;)

No probs with the pre-emption, it happens all the tme. I wish I had have refreshed the page though, instead of wasting my time, but as I said, my fault notr yours.

Also, I thought that DC did have a vote...Primarily because they have a vote in the actual election.

Or Nevada could replace W. Virginia going for Kerry and still we have 269-269 tie. Or New Mexico could go Bush and Nevada and NH and WV go Kerry then:  269-269 tie.  Or NH could stay Bush, and NV and WV go Kerry and Bush picks up one of Maine's EV votes.  Or anyone of one of the systems above and Arizona and Minnesota change hands. Or Ohio and NH, and Minn and N. Mexico could all swith and we still end up with a 269-269 tie.  

What I'm trying to say is don't take the 2000 map as gospel. Sure perhaps NH and WV lean Kerry, but other states can switch too. Its not that simple. There are 2^50 combinations of how states could end up, most of them aren't going to be ties.  Sure about half the states are complete and utter slam dunks thats still 2^25 combinations .  And most of them are not ties either.

Don't worry ... its all good

I would, the reps in question wouldn't... ;)

It seems that intricate hypotheticals are much-beloved. Perhaps we could complicate matters further: the Senate is tied, and the Vice President would be unable to cast a casting vote - though the constitution states clearly, "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided," the Twelfth Amendment provides, "The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, 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. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States," - one would note that a "a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice," therefore meaning that 51 Senators - not 50 Senators plus the Vice President - would be necessary to choose the Vice President. The Country would then be left with neither a President nor a Vice President, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, if eligible, would become President for the interim.

When does the interim end? And what's the time limit? I mean, if the speaker is made president, can the House no longer elect one?

According to the Twentieth Amendment:

If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Therefore, if the Senate arrives at a choice for the Vice President, then that person would take over from the Speaker. Of course, if the House elects a President, then that person would take over the Presidency. Otherwise, the Speaker would remain President.

The Speaker would have to resign as both Representative and Speaker to become Acting President; if the Speaker comes from a tied delegation, then that delegation would obviously change parties; while if the Speaker would come from a delegation in which one party had a one-vote majority, that state would have a tied vote. Thus, the Speaker's Presidency could lead to the election of a president.

Yeah, and he could possibly give the presidency to the opposition. In such an event could he postpone it, by stepping down or something? Or make a swich in speakers or whatever?

yeah, I meant congressional delegation.  sorry.  Bush wins.

you people made lots of comments.  Actually Hamilton gave Aaron Burr a hard time after that election.  Hamilton was killed.  Like anna lind.  Burr was discredited.    This is how we settle those things.

That's:  the wealthy elitist capitalist banker was killed by the populist New Jersey kid.  Okay, boys and girls?  There's always a solution.

Whoa.  it occurs to me that the preceding could be seriously misinterpreted.  I am not suggesting anything of the sort.  glad I caught that.  I apologize if I offended anyone.

3 US 20: The only evidence of a refusal to accept, or of a resignation of the office of President or Vice President, shall be an instrument in writing, declaring the same, and subscribed by the person refusing to accept or resigning, as the case may be, and delivered into the office of the Secretary of State. The Speaker could deliver his refusal to the Secretyary of State, and would then not need to step down from the House.

we accept

:)

The House would give the Presidency to Bush and those who didn't like it would have to lump it.  Actually I would enjoy this scenario even more than an outright Bush victory - we get the same good governance, but with more pissed-off lefties!

Is there and end to the line of succession? I know that's VERY unlikely, butif there is could you end up without a president alltogether? :D

I am not sure what Anna Lindh has to do with anything...lot of people get killed, many politicians are among them

you hane the cabinet ministers by some order

This website has a listing of the order of succession:


http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101032.html

this is it:

The Vice President Richard Cheney
Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert
President pro tempore of the Senate Ted Stevens
Secretary of State Colin Powell
Secretary of the Treasury John Snow
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Secretary of the Interior Gale A. Norton
Secretary of Agriculture Ann M. Veneman
Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans
Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao
Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy G. Thompson
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson
Secretary of Transportation Norman Yoshio Mineta
Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham
Secretary of Education Roderick Paige
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony J. Principi
Secretary of Homeland Security2 Tom Ridge

The HUD Secretary, Alphonso Jackson, is only Acting Secretary. He, therefore, does not form a part of the line of succession. Elaine Chao is not a natural-born citzen, so she is ineligible.

ashcroft is sick.  read all about it

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-people-ashcroft.html

We all knew he was sick politically, bit of bad news he's sick physically though.

He has gallstone pancreatitis.

So, if a magic bomb exploded, and the fragments homed and killed:

GWB
Richard Cheney
Dennis Hastert
Ted Stevens
Colin Powell
John Snow
Donald H. Rumsfeld
&
John Ashcroft

Then we could have a female President and Vice-President :)

Actually then we'd have a Female President and she would be able to pick her Vice President. There is no corresponding list for Vice Presidents. For example if Dick Cheney has a heart attack and dies, then Dennis Hastert does NOT become the vice president. Bush gets to pick one and has to get Congress to agree. When Spiro Agnew resigned, Nixon got Ford to be accepted by Congress as VP. Then when Nixon resigned Ford become Pres. and then he went to Congress and made Rockefeller VP.

There was a bit of discussion in 2000 as well. There was some thought that if the legal wrangling was not concluded in time, the House could have been blocked from voting, and on Jan 20 the sucession sequence would matter. More than one media outlet discussed wheter Hastert would step down to be interim President, since next in line at that time was Sen. Thurmond.

If the changed vote is to the candidate that would have won in the House (Republican presumably) it won't be viewed as a big deal. In fact the elector may be a sort of hero for saving the House from voting.

However, if it's a vote change that changes the outcome and it cuts against the GOP we will never hear the end of it. Republicans don't take losing well.

You're right.  I think this scenario would be one of the few where you might see something like a defacto coup.

You mean, like a civil war or something?

The thought of Gale Norton as President makes me shudder.

No I mean like Bush might conceivably refuse to accept the validity of an elector or two switching to Kerry.  

Oh, but how would he do that? I mean, refuse to step down or what? I remember Bush said something like he would demand that the electors would vote for him if he won the PV but lost the EV. BEFORE the election, of course... ;)

Yeah, just say 'they're breaking the public trust' or something like that, and not step down.  I suppose he could get some sort of validation through congress or the supreme court.

He would be breaking the constitution though.

I wonder what would happen.. you know, something like 98% of army officers are GOP.. 65% of enlisted men (though less commited).. and a solid majority of police officers..

I figured you'd get to that at some point...but you know what they say of conservatives, 'Too chicken to fight, too fat to run' ;) When the mobs of poor workers come out into the streets shouting the slogans of the French Revolution, then you'd tremble... ;)

Seriously, I think that a lot of Republicans would dislike messing with the constitution like that. Someone on this forum once states that the difference between conservatives and liberals were that the latter believed in the silly following the spirit of the law, whereas conservatives followed it ti the letter. Also, whoever acts always loses support. Bush would have to do stuff, whereas Kerry would just have to play by the rules to get the presidency.

If Bush wins all of the states he did in 2000, plus Minnesota, Iowa, and Pennsylvania, he has a partial landslide. Don't rule out California either. Can the Govenator pull that state for Bush/Cheney. I hope Kerry picks Richardson.

The relevance to this thread being...?

hmmm, Texas has 17 dems and 15 gop representatives by my calculations . . .

16 each, as of about 2 months ago.

Ralph Moody Hall.

The EV should stay but with numbers not real electors who can be faithless

The top three goes to the house and the house with every state=1 vote decides

Or we could have actual runoff elections.

Well, close enough ;)