Electoral tie

[Angel of Death]

As of this moment, what is the most likely scenario (candidates and map) where there is a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College?

[Josh/Devilman88]

Clinton vs Giuliani

[Хahar 🤔]

Clinton vs Giuliani

Looks good to me.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Clinton vs Giuliani

Clinton wins Arkansas

[Kushahontas]

Clinton vs Giuliani

switch nevada and west virginia and we're talkin.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Clinton vs Giuliani

switch nevada and west virginia and we're talkin.

I was going to put it that way, but something told me not to.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Thee are quite a few 269-269 scenarios, in which case the question becomes how the composition of the 111th Congress affect the vote in the House.

The current 110th has 21-3-26 R-T-D margin in State delegations, so a tie would currently go to the Democrats in the House, but it would be quite possible for the Democrats to keep control of the House in normal matters and lose it for the purpose of election.

[Mr.Phips]

Thee are quite a few 269-269 scenarios, in which case the question becomes how the composition of the 111th Congress affect the vote in the House.

The current 110th has 21-3-26 R-T-D margin in State delegations, so a tie would currently go to the Democrats in the House, but it would be quite possible for the Democrats to keep control of the House in normal matters and lose it for the purpose of election.

The worst that could happen for Democrats is ending up with a 23-4-23 R-T-D margin in State delegations, losing the edge in Kansas, Indiana, and having NH turn into a tie.  What would happen in this case?

[7,052,770]

Thee are quite a few 269-269 scenarios, in which case the question becomes how the composition of the 111th Congress affect the vote in the House.

The current 110th has 21-3-26 R-T-D margin in State delegations, so a tie would currently go to the Democrats in the House, but it would be quite possible for the Democrats to keep control of the House in normal matters and lose it for the purpose of election.

The worst that could happen for Democrats is ending up with a 23-4-23 R-T-D margin in State delegations, losing the edge in Kansas, Indiana, and having NH turn into a tie.  What would happen in this case?

Pomeroy, Herseth, and Taylor cast votes for Bush since that's how their districts voted, giving the Republicans 26 votes.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In the event that no candidate gets a majority of the delegations, they keep voting, and if no one is selected by January 20, the Vice President would serve as Acting President until the election of a President by the House.  Of course, if the Senate splits 50-50, there might not be a Vice President either, in which case, assuming that neither the Speaker of the House or the President pro tem chooses to resign their post to become Acting President, then Condi as Secretary of State, would be Acting President until either a President or Vice President was elected by the House or Senate.  In the case of the PPT, such an act would break the 50-50 Senate tie in favor of the other party, so no way would a PPT resign in such a case.  An adventuresome Speaker might be willing to take the gamble, or the House could elect someone other than the person who would normally be Speaker to the post so that on January 20 they would resign as Representative and Speaker to become Acting President.

[Hatman 🍁]

Clinton vs Giuliani

switch nevada and west virginia and we're talkin.

I was going to put it that way, but something told me not to.

Swap Missouri and Arkansas for Connecticut and Wisconson (lol?)

I dunno, it's hard because Clinton will win Arkansas for sure.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

By the way, I've found additional ammunition for my argument that Cheney would not be able to break a 50-50 Senate tie.

(link)

In reading the totals for the February 8, 1837 election of Vice President Johnson, the record states:

The whole number of the Senators of the U. States: 52
Majority necessary to a choice: 27
Quorum required by the constitution: 35
Whole number of Senators present: 49
For Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky: 33
For Francis Granger of New York: 16

Thus the 1836 election cycle record clearly indicates that if the Senate chooses a Vice President again, 51 Senators are required, not 50 Senators and the sitting Vice President.  If the ordinary voting rules had pertained, only 25, not 27 Senators would have been needed to make the choice as 3 Senators were absent.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Clinton vs Giuliani

Clinton wins Arkansas

Arkansas and Missouri.  Give Giuliani Michigan - it would NEVER happen, but it's more likely than Giuliani ever wining Arkansas.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm glad to see some people here realize that two elections does not make Arkansas a hardcore partisan GOP state.

[Erc]

By the way, I've found additional ammunition for my argument that Cheney would not be able to break a 50-50 Senate tie.

(link)

In reading the totals for the February 8, 1837 election of Vice President Johnson, the record states:

The whole number of the Senators of the U. States: 52
Majority necessary to a choice: 27
Quorum required by the constitution: 35
Whole number of Senators present: 49
For Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky: 33
For Francis Granger of New York: 16

Thus the 1836 election cycle record clearly indicates that if the Senate chooses a Vice President again, 51 Senators are required, not 50 Senators and the sitting Vice President.  If the ordinary voting rules had pertained, only 25, not 27 Senators would have been needed to make the choice as 3 Senators were absent.

There are a lot of interesting things about that bit of the Constitution.

The quorums, for example:
"two-thirds of the whole number of Senators" shall be necessary for a quorum in the Senate, and "a member or members from two-thirds of the states" in the House.

This gives rise to the rather interesting strategy of simply walking out of the Senate to prevent a choice for VP.  The minority party can just have 34 of its Senators walk out, preventing the necessary quorum (most likely the Republicans in this case)--so no VP gets selected at all.
It isn't really feasible in the House, as Republicans only control 6 state delegations completely, and Democrats only control 8 completely--neither close to the 17 required to prevent a quorum.

I'm not too familiar with the rules of the Congress, so I don't know whether the Sergeant-at-Arms would be allowed to coerce the the Senators to establish a quorum in this particular case--unlike in the House, which must "immediately" vote, it could be the case that the Senate could still conduct other business (for which it would have the proper quorum) in the meantime.  Of course, if it can conduct other business, it could, as per Article I, probably provide for the Sergeant-at-Arms to bring in the missing Senators in this case.

Not electing a VP doesn't do much in and of itself, but it could be useful in certain circumstances.  If the House is still deadlocked (which is more likely than a Senate deadlock due to the possibility of 3 candidates & of no-overall-majority delegations), the minority party can prevent the other party's VP from becoming (Acting) President.  This wouldn't be too useful in 2008 (Republicans would rather have Bayh than Pelosi (who could easily step down from her post without endangering California's vote)), unless they were sure that Pelosi or Byrd wouldn't step down.  But in other circumstances, it could be useful.  The Speaker of the House could be a member of the minority party in the Senate (due to a weird balance of the states in the House or different party majorities in the House & Senate), for example.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]