# 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:** 9\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![oldgulph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/45deac/32.png) [@oldgulph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldgulph)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/41 "2012-09-13T00:01:55Z")
[Ed.: To find the original text of this post, drop “politically relevant and equal in presidential elections” into Google to find its locations on multiple boards and blogs.] NationalPopularVote Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/42 "2012-09-13T10:07:58Z")
**oldgulph** , I am not sure whether or not this was a copyright infringement and I do not have time to track it down. However, it was a pure C&P from another site and that is not permitted, here. You may cite other works, but you may not post them in their entirety. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/43 "2012-09-13T13:57:41Z")
> [@StusBlues](#): > > By…CHANGING the law? He meant how is it even when 435 is an odd number. EDIT - never mind. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2012, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/44 "2012-09-15T14:39:30Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > 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. So when January 20 came around, would Boehner (or Pelosi) act as President only until the House and Senate finally agreed on winners, or would they automatically be entitled to act as President (with the power to appoint an acting Vice President) for the entire four year term and thereby cut off the power of the House and Senate to keep trying to elect a President and VP? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2012, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/45 "2012-09-16T02:44:02Z")
> [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > 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. Wouldn’t 50-49 would be a majority of the quorum? Or something. Anyway, I think you’re wrong here. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2012, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/46 "2012-09-16T03:53:09Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Wouldn’t 50-49 would be a majority of the quorum? Or something. Anyway, I think you’re wrong here. [QUOTE=12th amendment] …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. [/QUOTE] By the plain text, the “whole number” of Senators is 100. A majority of that “whole number” is 51. A quorum of 67 would be required for proceedings to occur. ---
**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 16, 2012, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/47 "2012-09-16T17:08:54Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Wouldn’t 50-49 would be a majority of the quorum? Or something. Anyway, I think you’re wrong here. No, I’m right. If the authors of the Amendment had meant a majority **of the Senators present and voting** , they would have said so. Instead they said, a majority **of the whole number**. When the Senate elected the Vice President in 1837, there were 52 Senators, of whom 49 showed up. Nevertheless 27 votes were required to elect. It said so in the Congressional Globe. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2012, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/48 "2012-09-16T17:24:32Z")
I stand corrected. But if a party, by colluding to create a 50-49 result, can thus deny the VP the ability to vote, then his constitutional vote-breaking capacity is voided. Surely if this were a reasonable tactic, it would have happened by now. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2012, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392/49 "2012-09-16T17:39:14Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > I stand corrected. But if a party, by colluding to create a 50-49 result, can thus deny the VP the ability to vote, then his constitutional vote-breaking capacity is voided. Surely if this were a reasonable tactic, it would have happened by now. If you are talking about regular bills, then it wouldn’t work, because regular bills only require a majority of senators that are present. So imagine a 50-49 vote on a bill and you are the last Senator and these scenarios: 1: You want the bill to pass. VP does not 2. You want the bill to pass. So does the VP. 3. You don’t want the bill to pass. Neither does the VP 4. You don’t want the bill to pass, but the VP does. #1. You vote “aye”. The bill passes #2. You vote “aye”. The bill passes #3. You vote “no” creating a 50-50 tie. The VP breaks the tie in your favor. #4. You vote “no” creating a 50-50 tie. The VP breaks the tie against you. However, you were already losing 50-49. You would lose by abstaining anyways. So, in no scenario can the system be gamed to thwart the VP. ETA: The same if you are trailing 50-49. In no scenario can the system be gamed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-ties-269-269-any-chance-romney-is-not-elected-by-house/634392.md?page=2)