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:
and the 20th Amendments says:
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?
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.]
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.
Romney-Biden, hmm? I suppose those who think split government is so wonderful will be delighted.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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).
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)