what if this is elections' scenario

[dunn]

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

[dunn]

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

yeah, and in 76' and in 88'

[dunn]

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

[dunn]

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

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

[dunn]

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

its up there on my map

[dunn]

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

then they seat until a decition

[dunn]

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

[dunn]

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.

we accept

[dunn]

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?

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.

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?

you hane the cabinet ministers by some order

[dunn]

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

[dunn]

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).

The bottom line is that this scenario would constitute the *legal* result. In two elections where the pop loser won the ec, there was a question as to who really won (1876&2000); however, if the election is legitimate, the legal winner is the ec winner, pop vote notwithstanding. So, this scenario would mean that there was a legal winner. To call for a new election would be to ignore the law.

Having said that, I think that the electoral college is not a good system as is. Ten percent the pop winner loses. That is not a good result. The fact that there are 'faithless' electors is but another reason to fix the electoral college.

The electoral college would be a good backup if nobody won a majority of the popular vote. Actually, under that kind of a system Bush would still have won the election (assuming he won FL).

Changing the system leads to the problem of the person who wins the popular vote winning a plurality rather than a majority.
The person who win 50%+ should be president, but what if in a three way race someone wins a 35% plurality. Should that person be president? I don't see why. One answer to that problem is to have a runnoff.

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

[dunn]

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).

The bottom line is that this scenario would constitute the *legal* result. In two elections where the pop loser won the ec, there was a question as to who really won (1876&2000); however, if the election is legitimate, the legal winner is the ec winner, pop vote notwithstanding. So, this scenario would mean that there was a legal winner. To call for a new election would be to ignore the law.

Having said that, I think that the electoral college is not a good system as is. Ten percent the pop winner loses. That is not a good result. The fact that there are 'faithless' electors is but another reason to fix the electoral college.

The electoral college would be a good backup if nobody won a majority of the popular vote. Actually, under that kind of a system Bush would still have won the election (assuming he won FL).

Changing the system leads to the problem of the person who wins the popular vote winning a plurality rather than a majority.
The person who win 50%+ should be president, but what if in a three way race someone wins a 35% plurality. Should that person be president? I don't see why. One answer to that problem is to have a runnoff.

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

That *would* certainly be an improvement. But what if there was a three way race and nobody won a majority? It would go to Congress. In such a scenario real electors could vote for one of the top two.

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