It would be the NEW house sitting in January. Plus, when the 269-269 tie becomes inevitable, each party would likely have one elector put forth a compromise candidate that could likely get votes from the other party. That would make it 268-268-1-1. Who would be the top “three” in that scenario?
Even if one party didn’t go along it would be 269-268-1. Nobody with a majority and an alternative out there.
Yes. Someone already corrected that.
It can’t be 269-269. Each State gets one vote based on how their delegation votes. It can be 25-25. You need 26 to win.
I meant the electoral college vote. On November 7 (or 25th) when the tie becomes apparent, one or both parties will look at the composition of the new house and see that neither candidate can get a majority.
So, that’s when the party bosses tell Mrs. Oglethorpe, elector from Backwater, Kansas to vote for, say, Scott Brown for President.
They still want Romney to win, but figure that Scott Brown is better than Obama, and in a stalemate can get some Dem support.
Likewise, the Dems tell Bob Fisher, elector from New York, to vote for Bob Casey for President. He’s pro-life and somewhat conservative. They would rather have Obama, but in a pinch would prefer him to Romney..
Ah, I see. That would be interesting. A lot of States have faithless elector laws so that would be illegal but I don’t think that all of them do.
Plus it is an open legal question as to whether a faithless elector in violation of their state’s laws would have their vote still count.
I thought this thread was going to be about haberdashery.
:: disappointed ::
Explain how this is going to happen? Assume that the election night results are showing that the electors will be split 269 to 269.
They don’t actually get together and vote as electors until December. Those votes are sealed, and sent to Congress. How are the Republicans going to be certain that their “faithless” elector will be canceled out by a “faithless” Democratic elector? If the Republican elector votes for Brown, but the Democratic elector doesn’t vote for Casey, President Obama is re-elected. If the Democratic elector votes for Casey, but the Republican elector doesn’t vote for Brown, Mr. Romney is elected. I don’t see either party running that risk (in the rare case that a 25 to 25 vote in the House is shaping up).
No. You need a majority of the electors to win. There is no difference between a 269-269 result and a 269-268-1 result, except that in the latter case a third person is eligible in the House balloting.
Correct. I just wonder if in my 268-268-1-1 scenario that everyone would agree that all four candidates were in the top “three”.
Just out of curiosity, if we condensed the House down to just 1 person per state based on the number of legislators that are republican or democrat, how many would be R, how many would be D, and how many would not exist because they are exactly tied?
Or in other words, how many states have majority R, majority D, and which are exactly tied?
Here you go. I count 16 Democrat-majority, 33 Republican-majority, and 1 tie (Minnesota.)
This, of course, might change with the new House but not enough to prevent a President Romey if there is a tie this time around.
Wow that’s way, way more lopsided than I would have predicted. Even a lot of “blue” states are red on that map.
Yeah, I was surprised too. But remember that 2010 was a very, very good election for the Republicans.
Yeah I really forget just how many seats they gained. Really blows me away honestly.
Considering the important part is that no one has 270+, I suspect each party would try to have half (as close as possible) vote for another candidate trying to make it 269-135-134 in case the other side has one or two faithless electors. I could forsee a electoral vote breakdown like 141-136-133-128 with the candidate receiving 128EV being the one left out
And this is how Ron Paul becomes president… as a compromise candidate. shudders
Admit it, you’re just afraid that the breakdown would be:
269 EV Obama
135 EV Romney
134 EV Palin
Ah, yes, my bad. :smack:
All faithless votes have counted in the past, so their votes should still count. It’s just that they may suffer penalties for not voting for their party’s candidate. It’s probably arguable whether those penalties are constitutional or not.
