That’s the old rules, in which electors cast two votes for president (so two candidates could have a majority of the number of electors). The current rules are in the 12th Amendment.
Ah. Thanks, I should have picked up on its being the old rules when I got to the bit about the Vice President.
Or if there were 3 or more top vote getters, none of whom got a majority.
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;-The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;-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; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.
Here is the 12th ad. Again, nothing at all about the Veep just rejecting the votes or even the Congress.
Congress can NOT just reject the votes.
What I said earlier. But it was not just some Q-Anon fantasy. It was also a Donald Trump fantasy, one that he used to incite the insurrection. He had expected Pence to reject some votes and got very angry when Pence said he would follow the current law (which is almost surely unconstitutional) that authorizes rejecting a state’s vote under the exceptional circumstance that a state had submitted two sets of electors, which no state had. So even asking for objections, as Pence did do, violated the constitution. The only thing the joint session can do is count the votes.
eschereal did not say “if the Vice President rejects votes,” though. The statement was “if CONGRESS rejects votes.” (And to nitpick, it’s not in the case of a tie. It’s in case of no majority. Were a third party candidate to win one vote, a count of 269-268-1 throws it to the House.)
While I agree that would be unconstitutional and was not the intention of the Electoral Count Act, it has never been tested in court and the Electoral Count Act literally DOES say Congress can do that. So in fact that IS what would happen, followed by court battles the likes of which the USA has never seen before. A Constitutional crisis, in other words.
But the Constitution does not.
And in any case that act (wiki) sez The Act thus relegates Congress to resolving only a narrow class of disputes, such as if a governor has certified two different slates of electors or if a state fails to certify its results under the Act’s procedures.[7] Congress may also reject votes under the Act for other specific defects, such as ministerial error, if an elector or candidate are ineligible for office, or if the electoral college votes were not “regularly given.”[7][8]
None of which would have allowed that Congress to reject the votes.
And yet it almost happened, and could happen again, thanks to the “Not regularly given” clause being vague. Then the constitutional crisis happens.
No cris, just a slap down by the Supremes.
What does Diana Ross have to do with this?
Besides, this isn’t nearly as obvious as you make it out to be. It is entirely possible that the Supreme Court would declare this to be a political question and not one they want to weigh in on.
Which results in a constitutional crisis. Sorry, I don’t think you’re playing out what would happen here.
Imagine what would have happened had the Republicans had a significant majority in both houses. They really would have rejected those votes and then the House would have held an “election” and elected Trump.
So it goes tot he Supreme Court, and, with luck, they declare the rejection of votes unconstitutional. Terrific, but the House elected Trump. And to 74 million people, Trump won, full stop. Not “he won” in the vague sense of “durrr, it was fixed,” but won in that the majority of Congress said so. Trump will have been elected in accordance with that part of the Constitution.
Do you think those people, and CONGRESS, are going to shrug their shoulders and accept the SCOTUS decision? Ha ha, no way. They will see the law as going one way, you the other. War ensues.
The Supreme Court wouldn’t touch that question. They have a long-standing tradition of avoiding “political” questions. It would get very ugly. Make I.6 look like a Sunday school picnic.