Suppose the Florida vote turns out to be exactly tied (yes, I said it’s nearly impossible, but bear with me). Does this mean that the presidential election comes down to whomever those 25 electors from Florida want to vote for?
I don’t know if there are any provisions for a re-election in only one state.
Now then (and yes, I know I’m stretching it here), if there are no provisions for re-elections, and Florida cannot decide on it’s electors, do things stand as they are and the new House will decide in January??
I think that if Florida really can’t decide, and so doesn’t send electors (and some other electors picked don’t jump ship), leaving no one with 270 electoral votes, it will go to the house and senate, and it will be the current house and senate that will decide. (I think the Electoral College votes in December)
I’m pretty sure it’s up to the states to choose their electors, using whatever method is described in each state’s own constitution. I would expect the choice of electors would be left to the state legislature, but I’m too tired after last night to go read the Florida constitution.
OK, here’s another wild (but more plausible) scenario:[ul][li]Bush or Gore (doesn’t matter which) wins the recount by a paper-thin margin.[/li][li]The loser files a court challenge, alleging election fraud.[/li][li]The judge, after examining the evidence, finds that there has been fraud, or serious irregularity, and throws out the election results.[/li][li]The judge orders a special election to determine which candidate’s electors get to go to the electoral college.[/li][li]The winner in the recount, upset at the prospect of a special election which might change that result, files an appeal.[/li][li]The appeal goes to the Florida Supreme Court. The loser of the appeal takes the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.[/li][li]Even assuming the appeals are handled expeditiously, there is no way to complete the appeals and schedule a special election prior to the date the Electoral College meets (as mandated by the Constitution).[/li][li]The electoral college determines to convene with or without the Florida delegates.[/li][li]The electors for the recount winner show up, in spite of the pending appeal.[/li][li]A fight ensues over whether to seat these electors.[/li][li]OR, no electors appear from Florida, and a vote is taken in their absence. Gore wins that vote, but then a debate ensues over whether he may claim the Presidency based on a majority of votes from electors actually present. Another court battle ensues.[/li][li]Inauguration day comes, and the issue is still unsettled. [/ul][/li]
Does Hastert then get sworn in as interim President?
> Does Hastert then get sworn in as interim President?
Nope. At least not that way.
If Florida’s votes don’t get cast, then its definite that no one wins a majority of electoral votes. The new House of Representatives gets to choose between the top three Electoral Vote winners, where each state delegation gets one vote, and an absolute majority (26) is needed. Currently, they control 25, the Democrats about 16, and the rest tied (and not voting). It seems that in the new congress, the Republicans will control either 26 or 27 delegations. (The Republicans lost several seats in California, a delegation they didn’t have anyhow, while picking up seats in several other states.)
What’s really interesting is if the Senate ends up 50-50. (Right now, it appears to be 51-49 Republican.) If the House can’t select a President, and the Senate can’t select a Vice-President, then you could get Acting President Hastert.
I dont think the case would get as far aa a court hearing. From what I remember learning in history is that if there was somehow a complete tie, the election would then go to the house. Also, since there is a little bit of voter fraud hanging around (supposedly) down there in Florida, the results from the Florida votes may very well be thrown out, giving no one those electoral votes and the decision of who would be the next president would go to the House.