Electoral College tie in 2004?

[BobT]

From checking the Senate rules, it isn’t clear if it a sitting a vice-president would get to vote break a deadlock if the Senate were equally divided on the selection of the on the Veep.

The Senate has only had to choose once, back in 1837, and the vice-president at the time, Martin Van Buren, was the president-elect.

Richard Johnson, Van Buren’s running mate, was chosen by a comfortable margin and he only missed election the first time around because he was generally considered to be a jerk by a lot of people.

[Pleonast]

@Freddy the Pig

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.

But, wait! If one Republican senator also abstains, then the vote is 49-49-2. A tie that the vice president can break! (Assuming the vice president can break a tie in this circumstance.)

So we end up with a guessing game: the Democrats try to vote a different total than the Republicans, and the Republicans trying to out-guess the Democrats and vote the same number as them. Presumably, they’ll have to stay in session until a winner emerges.

Ah, game theory at its finest…

[drhess]

@dalej42

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 know the rules, I’m still asking what it is NOW from where I can figure out how it might be in January. See?

[aahala]

@Pleonast

But, wait! If one Republican senator also abstains, then the vote is 49-49-2. A tie that the vice president can break! (Assuming the vice president can break a tie in this circumstance.)

So we end up with a guessing game: the Democrats try to vote a different total than the Republicans, and the Republicans trying to out-guess the Democrats and vote the same number as them. Presumably, they’ll have to stay in session until a winner emerges.

Ah, game theory at its finest…

(Disclaimer: I am not a Supreme Court Justice)
My opinion is that when it says “majority of whole Senators” it presently means 51 Senators in favor of the VP. The existing VP may vote to break a tie, but he’s never actually Senator.

Also, it seems no vote can be taken on this issue unless at least 67 Senators show up, otherwise no quorum.

[Freddy_the_Pig]

@Pleonast

But, wait! If one Republican senator also abstains, then the vote is 49-49-2. A tie that the vice president can break! (Assuming the vice president can break a tie in this circumstance.)

But then, even if Cheney counts as a “Senator” and votes, he only has 50 of 101 Senators. Still no majority!

[hajario]

This is interesting. I assume that they can choose anyone they want, not just the two VP candidates. Maybe it’ll end up 50-50 and they’ll compromise on McCain.

I thought nothing could be a bigger clusterfuck than 2000 but this scenario would top it.

Haj

[BobT]

The Senators CANNOT choose any one they want. They have to choose between the top two recipients of electoral votes for VP.

The electors, in some cases, can vote for whomever they want. But once it gets to the House and Senate, there are no surprise choices. The Congress can’t get around the EC’s choices.

[Ravenman]

(cripes… it’s amazing how few people actually read the 12th Amendment that I posted earlier today…)

[dtilque]

If there was a deadlock in voting for VP, that office would be vacant when the new presidential term starts. The 25th Amendment would then become applicable. It says

2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

At that point, the president could nominate whoever he wanted. How he gets his candidate approved by a split Senate would be an interesting political question.

[chaparralv8]

@drhess

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.

Then what happens? :smack:

What happens then is that a considerable sum of money (probably in the millions of dollars) is used to buy an elector’s vote off. This rogue, bought-off elector then decides the election. When the elector is convicted of selling his vote, he will be pardoned by the president.

[BobT]

Wow, it’s the debates of 2000 again. Can we not have crackpot Electoral College scenarios brought up again?

If an elector “sold” his or her vote, it would be a matter for that state to take care of. Congress counts the votes, but its the states who choose the electors.