No, the current president must be gone by then, but the Speaker of the House (Dennis Hastert) would become president until the March deadline. I think.
One cool thing about this election - it’s acted as a great civics lesson for the American People, who will probably understand about 10 times more about how their own system works after this all shakes out than they did before.
It looks like you’re correct: http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a4.html#Q64
DSYoungEsq said:
Pointless trivia now, but a burning issue then- it was because one of the winning Oregon Republican electors was a postmaster, and federal officials are constitutionally barred from being electors. The Democratic governor declared that therefore the Democratic elector with the highest vote total replaced him. Meanwhile, the Republican elector in question resigned as postmaster, then resigned as elector, and the other Republican electors met and appointed their now-eligible original colleague to fill his own vacancy. Congress eventually accepted his vote.
(source: Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to U.S. Elections; Second ed.; 1985; p. 262)
Thanks, Nebuli. 
Another example of true political chicanery came in the selection of the 15th member of the Commission. The Senate and House were each to name five members, and the Supreme Court named four. By design, these were evenly split between Dems and Repubs. The fifteenth was supposed to be an independent, David Davis of Illionois, who, presumably, would have been the deciding vote. But, Illinois Republicans elected him to a vacant senate seat from that state and he thus refused his place on the Commission. The justices then chose Joseph Bradley, another SupCt justice who was a Republican, albeit a bit moderate in his opinions. The Commission split 8-7 on all its votes, and the Republicans won each time, thanks to the efforts of the Illinois Republicans to scotch the otherwise well-thought-out plans of the national parties.
And politics grand?
For an interesting read, see the EB on the subject.
To continue the hijack…
For what it’s worth, C. Vann Woodward has made a fairly compelling argument that a compromise was reached in that Electoral Commission in 1877, whereby the Republican Hayes would be President, even though the electoral tally was hopelessly muddled and Tilden had won the popular vote. In exchange, the Southern Democrats and Whiggish Republicans would receive substantial federal subsidies of Southern railroads, as well as a promise of full withdrawal of federal troops from the South. Northern Republicans benefited from the subsidy as well, as their industries stood to profit.
It’s how come Reconstruction ended when it did. The Republicans got the White House, and the Democrats got the South back. The compromise, Woodward says, came at the expense of Northern Democrats, Radical Republicans, and black freemen.
As a point of interest, Woodward also claims that more people expected war as a result of the 1876 election than had done so in 1860-61. In fifteen states, forces of Democratic war veterans were prepared to march on Washington and demand the inauguration of Samuel Tilden.
Two quotes from Woodward’s book, Reunion and Reaction, that summarize his take on the situation. (C. Vann Woodward, by the way, is perhaps the preeminent Southern historian of his time.)
Interesting stuff.