See if this makes sense to you. For Kerry/Edwards to win, they must pull in all the states that Gore did. (Gore won CA, OR, WA, NM, WI, MN, IA, IL, MI, and all the states from DC to Maine, except Bush won NH). Note that, of the “Gore states,” CA gained a vote in the Electoral College after the 2000 reapportionment. However, WI, MI, IL, PA, NY and CT all lost EC votes to “Bush states.” (One DC Electoral College delegate abstained in 2000 as a protest, but presumably would be a Kerry EC vote this time.)
That means Kerry must also pick up NH, which it seems likely he will. Which means if Kerry gets all the Gore states, and NH and picks up one Bush state worth five EC votes (WV or NV, which are toss up or weakly for Bush, respectively), there’s a tie in the Electoral College.
The 12th Amendment covers this. The House will elect the President, which each state delegation getting one vote. This means that California would have as much to say about who the next president is as would North Dakota. The Senate will elect the Vice-President.
Hail Ants is right about Bush winning in this scenario. But if the Democrats can pick up three seats in the Senate to win the majority, then Edwards could be Bush’s VP, and great fun will ensue.
That would make it even more interesting. How would a 50/50 ( assuming Jeffords votes Edwards) Senate pick a vice president? Would Cheney get to vote to break that tie?
No, since the Twelfth Amendment requires a majority of the “whole number of Senators” for election, and Cheney is not a Senator. Even if one took the somewhat strained position that the Vice President’s tie-breaking power makes him a de facto Senator for purposes of this amendment, Democrats could easily defeat this power by having one of their members abstain. Then the result would be 50 for Cheney, 49 for Edwards, and one absent–no election, no tie, and no tie-breaking vote.
Interesting on the “whole number” bit. Is that language used, but ignored, elsewhere? Seems rather restrictive to hold everything hostage to one hold out abstainer.
Regarding each state having one vote, is that based on their US House of Rep delegation, or based on their state legislative delegation.
As I understand it, and I suspect it’s governed in the Rules of the House (and was done in 1800 and 1824), the House delegation from each state meets and decides for whom to cast that state’s vote. Then one of their number (presumably the most senior Congressman from that state) casts that vote in behalf of the delegation.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. The wording is not used elsewhere in the Constitution in reference to any type of Congressional vote.
That is correct. The members of each state delegation ballot among themselves, with a majority of the members present and voting by name for a candidate required to carry the state. Then a teller casts the vote for the entire delegation, with a majority (26) of all 50 states required to elect.
Under the rules adopted by the House in 1800 and 1824, the entire vote was conducted by secret ballot—only the final tally of votes by state was reported (not how each individual state voted, nor how the members themselves voted). This would probably be changed in the unlikely event of a future House election.
“…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.”
“…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.”
Oh, I see. A majority of the whole number (100), not the number present. Interesting.
Looking at the last sentence, is there anybody in the Senate that fits that? Are there any Senators that are not US born? Then they couldn’t vote.
If there was a legal question about whether Cheney could cast a vote to break a tie, then surely the Supreme Court would render its opinion based solely on its merits.
If the election gets thrown to the House, we may need to go back to the hanging chads, or use net points against Conference opponents to break state ties, ala NFL.
About 15 states have an even number of representatives, 8 state delgations presently are within one swing vote of breaking even and four are now even.
The Senate is restricted to choosing among the top two electoral-vote finishers. In the context of this year’s election, the only two choices would be Cheney and Edwards.
The House, however, chooses among the top three finishers (in the electoral vote, not the popular vote). This creates the intriguing possibility, in a tie election, that electors could spin off votes to additional candidates solely for the purpose of kicking them into the House election on the same constitutional footing as Bush and Kerry. For example, one can picture one or more Democratic electors voting for John McCain in the hope that he might siphon votes from Bush in the House. The mind reels.
We don’t know what that breakdown will be. The new congress taking office on January 3rd would be the one electing the president. The electoral college would meet in December and cast their tie votes. The votes would be delivered to the House of Representatives and opened by Dick Cheney in front of the House of Representatives. Then, if there is no winner, the House would elect the President.
I have to think the will be a majority of states with a majority Republican delegation however. The one vote Alaska delegation has as much power as the 55 vote California delegation. There are a lot of smaller Western and Southern states which are firmly in Republican hands.
<Hijack>
I believe this is why Gore conceded. He knew he would lose in the House of Representatives.
<end Hijack>
