# Electoral College ties 269-269 Any chance Romney is not elected by House? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 11, 2012, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392 "2012-09-11T13:37:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/21 "2012-09-11T16:25:22Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > The new Congress meets on Jan 6th to certify the Presidential results, the old VP and Pres leave office (and their replacements take office) on Jan 20th. > [@Acsenray](#): > > I’m pretty sure he’s vice president until a new vice president is sworn in. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > He holds the office until the new one is sworn in. > > ETA: ninja’d. Thanks Simplicio, I wasn’t clear on the timetable for certification. As for “holds the office until the new VP is sworn in” … that’s not technically correct, is it? Article II of the Constitution starts out with: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term …” So isn’t 4 years the cut-off, regardless of whether a new VP has been sworn in or not? The 12th Amendment says: > [@](#): > > The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote and the 20th Amendments says: > [@](#): > > If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified. That’d make Romney the President, and I suppose if the Senate tied at 50-50, Biden could cast the tie-breaking vote to make himself VP. There’s even an unfathomably remote possibility that Biden’s tie-breaking Senate vote could elevate him to President via the 20th Amendment if the state delegations in the House deadlocked at 25-25, leaving neither Obama nor Romney with a majority of state delegations. Wouldn’t that be funny? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/22 "2012-09-11T16:27:29Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Although, now I’m wondering whether the vice president has a tie-breaking role in this situation. I wondered that too. The 12th Amendment says: > [@](#): > > The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and 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. It’s a bit ambiguous because it does say that he needs “a majority of the whole number” [of Senators - which he wouldn’t technically have, even though he typically gets to cast tie-breaking votes.] ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/23 "2012-09-11T20:40:25Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Just in case…538 has the odds of an electoral vote tie at 0.3%. Assume Romney wins all the states where Silver shows him with 35% chance or better, and Obama wins all the states where Silver shows him with 84% chance or better. That leaves only five leftover states: Colorado, Virginia, and three in the Midwest (Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa). If Romney gets the three Midwest states and Obama gets Colorado and Virginia, the [result is 269-269 tie](http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=xUd). Romney-Biden, hmm? I suppose those who think split government is so wonderful will be delighted. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/24 "2012-09-11T20:48:14Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > It’s a bit ambiguous because it does say that he needs “a majority of the whole number” [of Senators - which he wouldn’t technically have, even though he typically gets to cast tie-breaking votes.] It’s not ambiguous. He needs a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn at the time of the election, of whom the incumbent vice president is not one. In any case, it would be ridiculously easy for Republicans to avoid a tie by having one of their number abstain. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/25 "2012-09-11T21:06:09Z")
What, the Republicans would throw the game? I’m thinking that wouldn’t happen. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/26 "2012-09-11T21:12:14Z")
Does the Vice President have any powers not granted to him by the President, other than breaking ties in the Senate? If not, I imagine that would be pretty much Biden’s only duty if Romney were President. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/27 "2012-09-11T21:14:24Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > What, the Republicans would throw the game? I’m thinking that wouldn’t happen. Is this directed to me? It’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that Biden 50, Ryan 49, and one abstention = no tie, no need to even worry about a tie-breaking vote, no majority, and no election. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/28 "2012-09-11T21:20:45Z")
How would that be significantly different that a 50-50 tie? Either way you have a constitutional crisis, because there’s no provision for there simply not to be a winner, there’s no provision for a do-over, etc. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/29 "2012-09-11T21:21:46Z")
> [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > Is this directed to me? It’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that Biden 50, Ryan 49, and one abstention = no tie, no need to even worry about a tie-breaking vote, no majority, and no election. Good point, that would get Republicans past the immediate problem, but … what then? Does the country just not have a VP? Does the President get to pick a new one and have to get him confirmed by Congress a la the 25th Amendment? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/30 "2012-09-11T21:40:27Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > How would that be significantly different that a 50-50 tie? Either way you have a constitutional crisis, because there’s no provision for there simply not to be a winner, there’s no provision for a do-over, etc. I think there _is_ a provision there: [25th Amendment](http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html#25) Section 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. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/31 "2012-09-11T21:57:32Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > How would that be significantly different that a 50-50 tie? Either way you have a constitutional crisis, because there’s no provision for there simply not to be a winner, there’s no provision for a do-over, etc. This discussion arose because people were suggesting that the incumbent VP had a tie-breaking vote, so that Biden could break a 50-50 tie in his own favor. My point is that, even if you believe that the VP has such a power (which I don’t, since it contradicts the explicit text of the Twelfth Amendment), the opposite party could easily deny him the opportunity to exercise it by having one of its members abstain. This gives the same result (no election) as a 50-50 tie, but without the opportunity for a tie-breaking vote. If neither VP candidate gets a majority (whether because of deadlock, abstentions, or absences), I would assume that the Senate would continue balloting until somebody does, just as the House took multiple ballots in 1801. If neither candidate achieves a majority by January 20, then there is some ambiguity as to whether the Senate could take even more ballots or whether the new President would have a VP vacancy to fill. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/32 "2012-09-11T22:00:25Z")
The fun thing about an EC tie is that it would give each of the 538 electors a chance to introduce a third candidate into the House mix by casting a faithless vote for a third individual. Any such individual, even with a single electoral vote, would go into the House balloting on the exact same constitutional footing as Obama and Romney. They might not get any votes in the House, but they would be eligible. This doesn’t work on the Senate/VP side because the Senate is restricted to the top two. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/33 "2012-09-11T22:50:37Z")
I’m rooting for Romney to take the popular vote but Obama gets re-elected by winning the Electoral College. It could happen. The howls of outrage and sleazy justifications would be fun, though I doubt anyone would seriously push for dumping the EC. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/34 "2012-09-11T23:00:27Z")
> [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > The fun thing about an EC tie is that it would give each of the 538 electors a chance to introduce a third candidate into the House mix by casting a faithless vote for a third individual. Any such individual, even with a single electoral vote, would go into the House balloting on the exact same constitutional footing as Obama and Romney. They might not get any votes in the House, but they would be eligible. That’d be interesting, but I suspect the real action would be a massive pressure campaign brought to bear on each and every elector for the campaign that lost the popular vote to switch to the “winning” side (and probably by the popular-vote loser as well to see if he can steal an elector away). ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2012, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/35 "2012-09-12T04:05:04Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Unless I’m misremembering, each state gets a single vote in the case of a tie in a presidential election, meaning that there are 50 electors. Correct, and if a state delegation is evenly divided then presumably it would be unable to cast a vote (thus abstaining). I’m not sure what happens if the House keeps spliting 25 delagations for Obama and 25 for Romney, but I think that if the Senate has elected a VP by noon on Jan 20th that person would then become President (so either Biden or Ryan). > [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Vice President Biden’s current term expires on January 20, 2013. Pretty sure any putative HoR presidential elections would take place well in advance of this. And if Inauguration Day rolls around and the House still hasn’t elected a President _and_ the Senate hasn’t elected a VP then John Boehner would become President since he’s the Speaker of the House. But it’s also possible (in theory) for the Democrats to retake the House without control a majority of delegations. Which means if _that_ happens and neither house can elected a candidate \*Nancy Pelosi \* would be our next President. Also if the Senate is tied Biden casts the deciding vote, and obviously he’d vote for himself over Ryan. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2012, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/36 "2012-09-12T13:57:48Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > Also if the Senate is tied Biden casts the deciding vote, and obviously he’d vote for himself over Ryan. No. See above. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2012, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/37 "2012-09-12T14:07:19Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I think there _is_ a provision there: [25th Amendment](http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html#25) Section 2: Well, yeah, but the Senate would be deadlocked again on the confirmation vote (assuming, as we were, that everything breaks down by party line). ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2012, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/38 "2012-09-12T17:23:41Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Vice President Biden’s current term expires on January 20, 2013. Pretty sure any putative HoR presidential elections would take place well in advance of this. The same amendment that sets the start (and end) of the Presidential term at January 20 sets the start and end of each Congressional term at January 3. Under current law, the electoral votes are counted by Congress on January 6. ---
**Author:** ![oldgulph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/45deac/32.png) [@oldgulph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldgulph)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2012, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/39 "2012-09-12T23:56:51Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > And since Republicans tend to carry more of the small states it seems likely Romney would take it. Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most. Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue. If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander. In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58). ---
**Author:** ![oldgulph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/45deac/32.png) [@oldgulph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldgulph)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2012, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/40 "2012-09-12T23:59:11Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > That’d be interesting, but I suspect the real action would be a massive pressure campaign brought to bear on each and every elector for the campaign that lost the popular vote to switch to the “winning” side (and probably by the popular-vote loser as well to see if he can steal an elector away). There have been 22,453 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. Since 1796, the Electoral College has had the form, but not the substance, of the deliberative body envisioned by the Founders. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges. If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state’s dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state’s dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party’s dedicated activists. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392.md?page=3)