FREE TAPATALK APP

Latimer · 14th October 2004, 01:45 PM

Hello,

I figured this little tidbit out while playing with the 'Electoral Vote Calculator' at the New York Times Site; and found this mathimatical oddity that is not out of the realm of possibility:

If Kerry wins Maine, Vermont, New York, Mass., Rhode Island, Conn., New Jersey, Deleware, Maryland, D.C., Virgina, North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minn., New Mexico, California, Oregon, and Hawaii:

His electoral count stands at 269; as does George Bush.

A tie.

What happens then?

Curiously,

Nyarlathotep · 14th October 2004, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Latimer
Hello,

I figured this little tidbit out while playing with the 'Electoral Vote Calculator' at the New York Times Site; and found this mathimatical oddity that is not out of the realm of possibility:

If Kerry wins Maine, Vermont, New York, Mass., Rhode Island, Conn., New Jersey, Deleware, Maryland, D.C., Virgina, North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minn., New Mexico, California, Oregon, and Hawaii:

His electoral count stands at 269; as does George Bush.

A tie.

What happens then?

Curiously,

No constitutional crisis at all. According to the constitution, it would then go to the House of Representatives to be voted on. Which very likely would mean a win for Dubya.

toddjh · 14th October 2004, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Latimer
What happens then?

As specified in the 12th amendment, it falls to the House to determine the president by vote (one vote per state) from the list of the three people with the most electoral votes. That's probably more along the lines of what the Founding Fathers intended in the first place: the people would create the "short list" of candidates, and the House would decide. That was before the parties took over, of course.

Jeremy

TragicMonkey · 14th October 2004, 01:56 PM

Just for kicks, what happens if the House splits exactly evenly? If it's one vote per state, then if 25 go one way and 25 the other...maybe we need to add another state? Just in case?

Latimer · 14th October 2004, 01:58 PM

Hello,

Ah, thank you! I didn't know the answer; nor that it had been a contingency that had been prepared for.

It would be quite the curious set of circumstances, though.

Thank you, again!

toddjh · 14th October 2004, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Just for kicks, what happens if the House splits exactly evenly? If it's one vote per state, then if 25 go one way and 25 the other...maybe we need to add another state? Just in case?

Then the vice president will act as the president. If the vice president can't be decided by electoral votes either (which would probably be the case with our modern-day system), then the Senate votes on it. It doesn't seem to say what happens if that fails, but I guess the fallback plans have to end at some point.

Edited to add: I take it back. If no president or vice president can be agreed upon by the House or Senate, then the 20th amendment gives Congress the power to determine who should act as president, and how that person would be selected. Seems kinda strange...you'd think if both the House and Senate were deadlocked on it before, they still would be...

Jeremy

Latimer · 14th October 2004, 01:59 PM

Hello,

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Just for kicks, what happens if the House splits exactly evenly? If it's one vote per state, then if 25 go one way and 25 the other...maybe we need to add another state? Just in case?

I guess the tie breaker would fall to (gasp) the Vice President himself?

I guess he'd cast the deciding vote for himself....what a fascinating system we have.

Thanks again,

Tmy · 14th October 2004, 02:04 PM

I think the Constitution calls for a duel to the death!

WHy dont we skip the election and let the Supreme court decide..............agian.

Nyarlathotep · 14th October 2004, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Latimer
Hello,

I guess the tie breaker would fall to (gasp) the Vice President himself?

I guess he'd cast the deciding vote for himself....what a fascinating system we have.

Thanks again,

That could happen but more would have to happen in between. The VP only breaks ties in the senate. Amendment 12 permits direct legislation for president if there is a hopeless dealock for president. Thus the it would have to tie in both the House and the Senate. I think this is unlikely in the extreme.

toddjh · 14th October 2004, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
That could happen but more would have to happen in between. The VP only breaks ties in the senate. Amendment 12 permits direct legislation for president if there is a hopeless dealock for president. Thus the it would have to tie in both the House and the Senate. I think this is unlikely in the extreme.

And even if that case, it would be the current VP who breaks the tie, not the newly-elected VP.

Edited to add: Duh! Brain fart, please disregard.

Jeremy

Nyarlathotep · 14th October 2004, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
I think the Constitution calls for a duel to the death!

Admittedlyit would be more entertaining than the current system, which is a plus in its favor.

In that case I would have to say it would go to Kerry. I don't see Bush negating Kerries HUGE advantage in reach. Unless they used guns, thenit could go either way.

Matabiri · 14th October 2004, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Admittedlyit would be more entertaining than the current system, which is a plus in its favor.

In that case I would have to say it would go to Kerry. I don't see Bush negating Kerries HUGE advantage in reach. Unless they used guns, thenit could go either way.

I suspect Bush's frat-boy experiences (which I have no doubt he has) would count in his favour. Also, he'd be more willing to fight dirty.

Nyarlathotep · 14th October 2004, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Matabiri
I suspect Bush's frat-boy experiences (which I have no doubt he has) would count in his favour. Also, he'd be more willing to fight dirty.

Maybe. But then again Kerry has all that Vietnam war experience. If Kerry can take on Charley, he can certainly take on Georgey.

Though Laura Bush strikes me as the type to cold-cock Kerry with a metal chair if George started to lose, so that might be a definite advantage.

phildonnia · 14th October 2004, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Latimer
Hello,

Ah, thank you! I didn't know the answer; nor that it had been a contingency that had been prepared for.

It would be quite the curious set of circumstances, though.

Thank you, again!

It's happened. Thomas Jefferson was elected over Aaron Burr by the house of Reps.

At the time, the pres and veep were not on one ticket. The members of the electoral college got two votes, which they were expected to use for two different candidates. So there was _always_ a tie. The intended veep would then drop out, and take the consolation prize, which was the vice presidency.

In this case, Burr decided to make a move. Fortunately he didn't win.

Brown · 14th October 2004, 02:29 PM

Consider this from Prof. John Allen Paulos. A Proposed Math Quiz for Presidential Candidates:

Quote:

3. You must understand the electoral process, of course, so given the way the Electoral College is set up, what is the theoretically smallest number of actual votes (not electoral votes) a candidate can receive and still be elected president?

See the column for the answer.

phildonnia · 14th October 2004, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by phildonnia
It's happened. Thomas Jefferson was elected over Aaron Burr by the house of Reps.

At the time, the pres and veep were not on one ticket. The members of the electoral college got two votes, which they were expected to use for two different candidates. So there was _always_ a tie. The intended veep would then drop out, and take the consolation prize, which was the vice presidency.

In this case, Burr decided to make a move. Fortunately he didn't win.

Incidentally, a tie is not needed to trigger this condition. If neither candidate gets 50% of the electoral college, the vote goes to the house.

Also, if the house can't get 50% behind one candidate, then the senate gets to decide. If there's a tie in the senate of course, the current vice president breaks the tie. This would have led to a truly surreal situation if it had happened in 2000, since the vice president was one of the candidates.

CBL4 · 14th October 2004, 03:47 PM

According to the Economist, the President and VP are elected differently. The prez is elected as described above. As far as an electoral tie:

Quote:

In the current Congress, Republicans are in the majority in 30 state delegations. It would take a landslide to change that, and if there were a landslide there would be no presidential tie.

In other words, Bush wins an electoral college tie.

Quote:

Meanwhile, says the constitution, the new Senate elects the vice-president.

Edwards could win this with a shift of very few Senate seats.

Quote:

What if the new Senate were also tied, which would be perfectly possible in a close-fought race? In that case, the old vice-president gets to break the tie in his capacity as leader of the old Senate. In other words, Dick Cheney, who is running as the new vice-president, would get to re-elect himself.

Except for one thing: the 12th amendment says that two-thirds of the Senate must be present to form a quorum. So a Democratic boycott could prevent the election of a vice-president.

So anything is possible for VP.

http://www.economist.com/displaystor...ory_id=2921861

CBL

CapelDodger · 14th October 2004, 04:48 PM

from TragicMonkey:

Quote:

If it's one vote per state, then if 25 go one way and 25 the other...maybe we need to add another state? Just in case?

Any suggestons? Iraq's an obvious option, no more "occupation" to resist, but the effects on Medicare costs don't bear thinking about. Another option would be to persuade an odd number of states to secede. The Republic of Texas could live again, for instance.

toddjh · 14th October 2004, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Any suggestons?

I hear Alaska is getting sick of Texas beating its chest, and is considering dividing itself in two to make Texas into the third largest state.

Jeremy

Dorian Gray · 14th October 2004, 10:54 PM

Quote:

This would have led to a truly surreal situation if it had happened in 2000, since the vice president was one of the candidates.

The vice president is one of the candidates now.

Art Vandelay · 15th October 2004, 01:07 AM

Clearly Latimer has not read Article 8, Section 6 of the US Constitution:

Quote:

In the event that any dispute shall arise as to application of election law to a presidential race, the Supreme Court shall have ultimate judicial authority. If, rather, the conclusion of the presidential election shall be thrown into dispute as a result of no candidate garnering an absolute majority of electoral votes, the election shall be settled by a vote of Congress. If, in either case, this results in a candidate, who failed to receive the majority of popular votes, to attain the presidency, and it is further the case that said candidate is guilty of being a member of the Republican party, it shall be the obligation of all Democrats to spend the next four years whining about the presidency being stolen, and in the former case the Supreme Court shall, in complete disregard for reality, be referred to the sole determinant of the president; in the latter, Congress shall be so designated

TragicMonkey · 15th October 2004, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from TragicMonkey:Any suggestons? Iraq's an obvious option, no more "occupation" to resist, but the effects on Medicare costs don't bear thinking about. Another option would be to persuade an odd number of states to secede. The Republic of Texas could live again, for instance.

I was thinking Puerto Rico, actually. The Puerto Ricans I know only oppose statehood because they fear some kind of English-only law being passed on them...and they'd lose some tax advantages.

Texas likes to claim it has the right to secede...but when they tried it in 1861, they got forced back in.

Sane · 15th October 2004, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Just for kicks, what happens if the House splits exactly evenly? If it's one vote per state, then if 25 go one way and 25 the other...maybe we need to add another state? Just in case?

District of Columbia is #51

SlippyToad · 16th October 2004, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Matabiri
I suspect Bush's frat-boy experiences (which I have no doubt he has) would count in his favour. Also, he'd be more willing to fight dirty.

Well, Kerry has actually fought people for real. With or without weapons, I bet he has a clearer idea of what to do than Dubya.

Thumper · 16th October 2004, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Clearly Latimer has not read Article 8, Section 6 of the US Constitution:

I, too, have not read Article VIII of the US Constitution. My copy only goes up to Article VII, the place where everyone signed it.

Beerina · 20th October 2004, 06:41 AM

Given the massive amounts of Federal cash flooding into Texas in the way of the Savings and Loan bailout, I doubt they're planning on leaving any time soon.

Benguin · 20th October 2004, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by phildonnia
Incidentally, a tie is not needed to trigger this condition. If neither candidate gets 50% of the electoral college, the vote goes to the house.

Also, if the house can't get 50% behind one candidate, then the senate gets to decide. If there's a tie in the senate of course, the current vice president breaks the tie. This would have led to a truly surreal situation if it had happened in 2000, since the vice president was one of the candidates.

So given how close it is likely to be, if someone like nader managed just a few college votes somewhere you could hit that scenario?

I don't follow US politics that closely ... is there any danger of that occuring this time around?

agnostic_god · 20th October 2004, 09:58 AM

If the 2004 election were actually that close, it would instantly turn into a huge mess in the courts because both sides are ready with their armies of lawyers to file suits wherever they deem it helpful.

Michael Redman · 20th October 2004, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Benguin
So given how close it is likely to be, if someone like nader managed just a few college votes somewhere you could hit that scenario?

I don't follow US politics that closely ... is there any danger of that occuring this time around?

No. Most states send all their electors to the candidate that wins the state's popular election, no matter the margin, no matter if it's plurality or majority. A couple of states (maybe only Maine?) split electors on proportion of votes. So, Nader would need a sizable minority of votes in such a state to get even one elector, and need to carry the other states to get any from them. It is remotely possible that he could get one elector, but not more.

Of course, an elector could go nuts and vote for a candidate he or she wasn't sent to vote for, but I don't believe that has happened more than once or twice in our history.

thaiboxerken · 20th October 2004, 11:06 PM

Oh, Bush will just have the Supreme Court declare him president...........again.

Thumper · 25th October 2004, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Michael Redman
No. Most states send all their electors to the candidate that wins the state's popular election, no matter the margin, no matter if it's plurality or majority. A couple of states (maybe only Maine?) split electors on proportion of votes. So, Nader would need a sizable minority of votes in such a state to get even one elector, and need to carry the other states to get any from them. It is remotely possible that he could get one elector, but not more.

Of course, an elector could go nuts and vote for a candidate he or she wasn't sent to vote for, but I don't believe that has happened more than once or twice in our history.

Maine and Nebraska allow for splitting their EV. The congressional districts in those two states go to the winner of that district, with the winner of the state getting the two 'senator' votes.

Faithless electors happen infrequently. I believe the last one we had was a vote for Bentsen in 84. Before then, it was Reagan in 76.

Many states legally require the electors to vote for whom they originally stated. However, punishing faithless electors is quite questionable.

CapelDodger · 25th October 2004, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by agnostic_god
If the 2004 election were actually that close, it would instantly turn into a huge mess in the courts because both sides are ready with their armies of lawyers to file suits wherever they deem it helpful.

What happens if the results are still going through the courts when the new president is supposed to be sworn in? Is there a precedent?

Thumper · 25th October 2004, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CapelDodger
What happens if the results are still going through the courts when the new president is supposed to be sworn in? Is there a precedent?

2000 was the precedent. USSC will hear the case and hand down a final decision as quickly as possible.

CapelDodger · 25th October 2004, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thumper
2000 was the precedent. USSC will hear the case and hand down a final decision as quickly as possible.

Was the swearing-in delayed last time? "Quickly as possible" could mean months with all those lawyers and dodgy voting machines around. I worked out long ago that the US won't go out with a bang, it'll go out in a welter of litigation. Perhaps the time is at hand.

hgc · 25th October 2004, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thumper
Maine and Nebraska allow for splitting their EV. The congressional districts in those two states go to the winner of that district, with the winner of the state getting the two 'senator' votes.

Colorado has a ballot initiative to change their system to alot electoral votes based on % of popular vote, meaning, 5 and 4 (out of their total 9). The interesting part is that if it passes it applies to this election. That means that if it passes, which is highly unlikely at this point, the winning party in Colorado will vigorously challenge the law in court, having just lost 4 electoral votes.

Quote:

Faithless electors happen infrequently. I believe the last one we had was a vote for Bentsen in 84. Before then, it was Reagan in 76.

Many states legally require the electors to vote for whom they originally stated. However, punishing faithless electors is quite questionable.

I heard that WV this year has a Bush elector who has stated he will vote for Kerry. Anyone have confirmation of that?

14th October 2004, 01:45 PM	#1
Latimer New Blood Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 19	The Small Possibility of a Constitutional Crisis Hello, I figured this little tidbit out while playing with the 'Electoral Vote Calculator' at the New York Times Site; and found this mathimatical oddity that is not out of the realm of possibility: If Kerry wins Maine, Vermont, New York, Mass., Rhode Island, Conn., New Jersey, Deleware, Maryland, D.C., Virgina, North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minn., New Mexico, California, Oregon, and Hawaii: His electoral count stands at 269; as does George Bush. A tie. What happens then? Curiously,
Latimer New Blood Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 19	__________________ Jonathan -It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is what I can prove.-

14th October 2004, 01:52 PM	#2
Nyarlathotep Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 7,514	Re: The Small Possibility of a Constitutional Crisis Quote: Originally posted by Latimer Hello, I figured this little tidbit out while playing with the 'Electoral Vote Calculator' at the New York Times Site; and found this mathimatical oddity that is not out of the realm of possibility: If Kerry wins Maine, Vermont, New York, Mass., Rhode Island, Conn., New Jersey, Deleware, Maryland, D.C., Virgina, North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minn., New Mexico, California, Oregon, and Hawaii: His electoral count stands at 269; as does George Bush. A tie. What happens then? Curiously, No constitutional crisis at all. According to the constitution, it would then go to the House of Representatives to be voted on. Which very likely would mean a win for Dubya.
	__________________ Why stay sane in a sick world?

14th October 2004, 01:55 PM	#3
toddjh Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: USA Posts: 3,252	Re: The Small Possibility of a Constitutional Crisis Quote: Originally posted by Latimer What happens then? As specified in the 12th amendment, it falls to the House to determine the president by vote (one vote per state) from the list of the three people with the most electoral votes. That's probably more along the lines of what the Founding Fathers intended in the first place: the people would create the "short list" of candidates, and the House would decide. That was before the parties took over, of course. Jeremy

14th October 2004, 01:56 PM	#4
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,302	Just for kicks, what happens if the House splits exactly evenly? If it's one vote per state, then if 25 go one way and 25 the other...maybe we need to add another state? Just in case?
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

14th October 2004, 01:59 PM	#7
Latimer New Blood Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 19	Hello, Quote: Originally posted by TragicMonkey Just for kicks, what happens if the House splits exactly evenly? If it's one vote per state, then if 25 go one way and 25 the other...maybe we need to add another state? Just in case? I guess the tie breaker would fall to (gasp) the Vice President himself? I guess he'd cast the deciding vote for himself....what a fascinating system we have. Thanks again,
Latimer New Blood Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 19	__________________ Jonathan -It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is what I can prove.-

14th October 2004, 01:58 PM	#5
Latimer New Blood Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 19	Hello, Ah, thank you! I didn't know the answer; nor that it had been a contingency that had been prepared for. It would be quite the curious set of circumstances, though. Thank you, again!
Latimer New Blood Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 19	__________________ Jonathan -It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is what I can prove.-

14th October 2004, 01:59 PM	#6
toddjh Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: USA Posts: 3,252	Quote: Originally posted by TragicMonkey Just for kicks, what happens if the House splits exactly evenly? If it's one vote per state, then if 25 go one way and 25 the other...maybe we need to add another state? Just in case? Then the vice president will act as the president. If the vice president can't be decided by electoral votes either (which would probably be the case with our modern-day system), then the Senate votes on it. It doesn't seem to say what happens if that fails, but I guess the fallback plans have to end at some point. Edited to add: I take it back. If no president or vice president can be agreed upon by the House or Senate, then the 20th amendment gives Congress the power to determine who should act as president, and how that person would be selected. Seems kinda strange...you'd think if both the House and Senate were deadlocked on it before, they still would be... Jeremy

14th October 2004, 02:04 PM	#8
Tmy Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Republic of Massachusetts Posts: 6,489	I think the Constitution calls for a duel to the death! WHy dont we skip the election and let the Supreme court decide..............agian.
	__________________ "Common sense is something that skeptics can and should do without." -shanek

14th October 2004, 02:09 PM	#9
Nyarlathotep Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 7,514	Quote: Originally posted by Latimer Hello, I guess the tie breaker would fall to (gasp) the Vice President himself? I guess he'd cast the deciding vote for himself....what a fascinating system we have. Thanks again, That could happen but more would have to happen in between. The VP only breaks ties in the senate. Amendment 12 permits direct legislation for president if there is a hopeless dealock for president. Thus the it would have to tie in both the House and the Senate. I think this is unlikely in the extreme.
	__________________ Why stay sane in a sick world?

14th October 2004, 02:11 PM	#10
toddjh Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: USA Posts: 3,252	Quote: Originally posted by Nyarlathotep That could happen but more would have to happen in between. The VP only breaks ties in the senate. Amendment 12 permits direct legislation for president if there is a hopeless dealock for president. Thus the it would have to tie in both the House and the Senate. I think this is unlikely in the extreme. And even if that case, it would be the current VP who breaks the tie, not the newly-elected VP. Edited to add: Duh! Brain fart, please disregard. Jeremy

14th October 2004, 02:12 PM	#11
Nyarlathotep Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 7,514	Quote: Originally posted by Tmy I think the Constitution calls for a duel to the death! Admittedlyit would be more entertaining than the current system, which is a plus in its favor. In that case I would have to say it would go to Kerry. I don't see Bush negating Kerries HUGE advantage in reach. Unless they used guns, thenit could go either way.
	__________________ Why stay sane in a sick world?

14th October 2004, 02:16 PM	#12
Matabiri Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,734	Quote: Originally posted by Nyarlathotep Admittedlyit would be more entertaining than the current system, which is a plus in its favor. In that case I would have to say it would go to Kerry. I don't see Bush negating Kerries HUGE advantage in reach. Unless they used guns, thenit could go either way. I suspect Bush's frat-boy experiences (which I have no doubt he has) would count in his favour. Also, he'd be more willing to fight dirty.
	__________________ "That's the kind of thing you can't look up on the internet, because it's the kind of thing you get taught at school." - Ashley Pomeroy

14th October 2004, 02:26 PM	#13
Nyarlathotep Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 7,514	Quote: Originally posted by Matabiri I suspect Bush's frat-boy experiences (which I have no doubt he has) would count in his favour. Also, he'd be more willing to fight dirty. Maybe. But then again Kerry has all that Vietnam war experience. If Kerry can take on Charley, he can certainly take on Georgey. Though Laura Bush strikes me as the type to cold-cock Kerry with a metal chair if George started to lose, so that might be a definite advantage.
	__________________ Why stay sane in a sick world?

14th October 2004, 02:28 PM	#14
phildonnia Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Sac'to CA Posts: 2,339	Quote: Originally posted by Latimer Hello, Ah, thank you! I didn't know the answer; nor that it had been a contingency that had been prepared for. It would be quite the curious set of circumstances, though. Thank you, again! It's happened. Thomas Jefferson was elected over Aaron Burr by the house of Reps. At the time, the pres and veep were not on one ticket. The members of the electoral college got two votes, which they were expected to use for two different candidates. So there was _always_ a tie. The intended veep would then drop out, and take the consolation prize, which was the vice presidency. In this case, Burr decided to make a move. Fortunately he didn't win.

14th October 2004, 02:29 PM	#15
Brown Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 12,293	Consider this from Prof. John Allen Paulos. A Proposed Math Quiz for Presidential Candidates: Quote: 3. You must understand the electoral process, of course, so given the way the Electoral College is set up, what is the theoretically smallest number of actual votes (not electoral votes) a candidate can receive and still be elected president? See the column for the answer.

14th October 2004, 02:33 PM	#16
phildonnia Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Sac'to CA Posts: 2,339	Quote: Originally posted by phildonnia It's happened. Thomas Jefferson was elected over Aaron Burr by the house of Reps. At the time, the pres and veep were not on one ticket. The members of the electoral college got two votes, which they were expected to use for two different candidates. So there was _always_ a tie. The intended veep would then drop out, and take the consolation prize, which was the vice presidency. In this case, Burr decided to make a move. Fortunately he didn't win. Incidentally, a tie is not needed to trigger this condition. If neither candidate gets 50% of the electoral college, the vote goes to the house. Also, if the house can't get 50% behind one candidate, then the senate gets to decide. If there's a tie in the senate of course, the current vice president breaks the tie. This would have led to a truly surreal situation if it had happened in 2000, since the vice president was one of the candidates.

14th October 2004, 03:47 PM	#17
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349	According to the Economist, the President and VP are elected differently. The prez is elected as described above. As far as an electoral tie: Quote: In the current Congress, Republicans are in the majority in 30 state delegations. It would take a landslide to change that, and if there were a landslide there would be no presidential tie. In other words, Bush wins an electoral college tie. Quote: Meanwhile, says the constitution, the new Senate elects the vice-president. Edwards could win this with a shift of very few Senate seats. Quote: What if the new Senate were also tied, which would be perfectly possible in a close-fought race? In that case, the old vice-president gets to break the tie in his capacity as leader of the old Senate. In other words, Dick Cheney, who is running as the new vice-president, would get to re-elect himself. Except for one thing: the 12th amendment says that two-thirds of the Senate must be present to form a quorum. So a Democratic boycott could prevent the election of a vice-president. So anything is possible for VP. http://www.economist.com/displaystor...ory_id=2921861 CBL
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349

14th October 2004, 04:48 PM	#18
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 16,761	from TragicMonkey: Quote: If it's one vote per state, then if 25 go one way and 25 the other...maybe we need to add another state? Just in case? Any suggestons? Iraq's an obvious option, no more "occupation" to resist, but the effects on Medicare costs don't bear thinking about. Another option would be to persuade an odd number of states to secede. The Republic of Texas could live again, for instance.
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

14th October 2004, 09:23 PM	#19
toddjh Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: USA Posts: 3,252	Quote: Originally posted by CapelDodger Any suggestons? I hear Alaska is getting sick of Texas beating its chest, and is considering dividing itself in two to make Texas into the third largest state. Jeremy

14th October 2004, 10:54 PM	#20
Dorian Gray Hypocrisy Detector Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 20,210	Quote: This would have led to a truly surreal situation if it had happened in 2000, since the vice president was one of the candidates. The vice president is one of the candidates now.
	__________________ "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka "Rational arguments don't work on religious people. If they did, there wouldn't be any religious people." - House Additionally to Carlin being funnier than Izzard, I think Dorian is funnier than the Marquis. - Ron Tomkins

15th October 2004, 01:07 AM	#21
Art Vandelay Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 4,790	Clearly Latimer has not read Article 8, Section 6 of the US Constitution: Quote: In the event that any dispute shall arise as to application of election law to a presidential race, the Supreme Court shall have ultimate judicial authority. If, rather, the conclusion of the presidential election shall be thrown into dispute as a result of no candidate garnering an absolute majority of electoral votes, the election shall be settled by a vote of Congress. If, in either case, this results in a candidate, who failed to receive the majority of popular votes, to attain the presidency, and it is further the case that said candidate is guilty of being a member of the Republican party, it shall be the obligation of all Democrats to spend the next four years whining about the presidency being stolen, and in the former case the Supreme Court shall, in complete disregard for reality, be referred to the sole determinant of the president; in the latter, Congress shall be so designated

15th October 2004, 04:57 AM	#22
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,302	Quote: Originally posted by CapelDodger from TragicMonkey:Any suggestons? Iraq's an obvious option, no more "occupation" to resist, but the effects on Medicare costs don't bear thinking about. Another option would be to persuade an odd number of states to secede. The Republic of Texas could live again, for instance. I was thinking Puerto Rico, actually. The Puerto Ricans I know only oppose statehood because they fear some kind of English-only law being passed on them...and they'd lose some tax advantages. Texas likes to claim it has the right to secede...but when they tried it in 1861, they got forced back in.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

15th October 2004, 07:44 AM	#23
Sane Scholar Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 71	Quote: Originally posted by TragicMonkey Just for kicks, what happens if the House splits exactly evenly? If it's one vote per state, then if 25 go one way and 25 the other...maybe we need to add another state? Just in case? District of Columbia is #51
Sane Scholar Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 71

16th October 2004, 03:20 PM	#24
SlippyToad Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 382	Quote: Originally posted by Matabiri I suspect Bush's frat-boy experiences (which I have no doubt he has) would count in his favour. Also, he'd be more willing to fight dirty. Well, Kerry has actually fought people for real. With or without weapons, I bet he has a clearer idea of what to do than Dubya.

16th October 2004, 04:08 PM	#25
Thumper Thinker Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 234	Quote: Originally posted by Art Vandelay Clearly Latimer has not read Article 8, Section 6 of the US Constitution: I, too, have not read Article VIII of the US Constitution. My copy only goes up to Article VII, the place where everyone signed it.
Thumper Thinker Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 234	__________________ Two cents from Tennessee.

20th October 2004, 06:41 AM	#26
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Given the massive amounts of Federal cash flooding into Texas in the way of the Savings and Loan bailout, I doubt they're planning on leaving any time soon.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

20th October 2004, 07:38 AM	#27
Benguin Too Chilled For The Anti-Homeopathy Illuminati Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,902	Quote: Originally posted by phildonnia Incidentally, a tie is not needed to trigger this condition. If neither candidate gets 50% of the electoral college, the vote goes to the house. Also, if the house can't get 50% behind one candidate, then the senate gets to decide. If there's a tie in the senate of course, the current vice president breaks the tie. This would have led to a truly surreal situation if it had happened in 2000, since the vice president was one of the candidates. So given how close it is likely to be, if someone like nader managed just a few college votes somewhere you could hit that scenario? I don't follow US politics that closely ... is there any danger of that occuring this time around?
	__________________ It has been said cats have nine lives which, if true, makes them great candidates for experimentation. 100,000 medical doctors say go read this before quoting their articles. Probably. Voltaire "Atheism - the vice of a few intelligent people"

20th October 2004, 09:58 AM	#28
agnostic_god Student Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 25	If the 2004 election were actually that close, it would instantly turn into a huge mess in the courts because both sides are ready with their armies of lawyers to file suits wherever they deem it helpful.
agnostic_god Student Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 25	__________________ This is the word of God. All other works claiming to be the word of God are false. You may know that this is the word of God because it says right here that this is the word of God.

20th October 2004, 10:06 AM	#29
Michael Redman Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: St. Paul, MN Posts: 3,063	Quote: Originally posted by Benguin So given how close it is likely to be, if someone like nader managed just a few college votes somewhere you could hit that scenario? I don't follow US politics that closely ... is there any danger of that occuring this time around? No. Most states send all their electors to the candidate that wins the state's popular election, no matter the margin, no matter if it's plurality or majority. A couple of states (maybe only Maine?) split electors on proportion of votes. So, Nader would need a sizable minority of votes in such a state to get even one elector, and need to carry the other states to get any from them. It is remotely possible that he could get one elector, but not more. Of course, an elector could go nuts and vote for a candidate he or she wasn't sent to vote for, but I don't believe that has happened more than once or twice in our history.
	__________________ The rule is perfect; in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane. - Mark Twain

20th October 2004, 11:06 PM	#30
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 21,090	Oh, Bush will just have the Supreme Court declare him president...........again.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

25th October 2004, 02:51 PM	#31
Thumper Thinker Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 234	Quote: Originally posted by Michael Redman No. Most states send all their electors to the candidate that wins the state's popular election, no matter the margin, no matter if it's plurality or majority. A couple of states (maybe only Maine?) split electors on proportion of votes. So, Nader would need a sizable minority of votes in such a state to get even one elector, and need to carry the other states to get any from them. It is remotely possible that he could get one elector, but not more. Of course, an elector could go nuts and vote for a candidate he or she wasn't sent to vote for, but I don't believe that has happened more than once or twice in our history. Maine and Nebraska allow for splitting their EV. The congressional districts in those two states go to the winner of that district, with the winner of the state getting the two 'senator' votes. Faithless electors happen infrequently. I believe the last one we had was a vote for Bentsen in 84. Before then, it was Reagan in 76. Many states legally require the electors to vote for whom they originally stated. However, punishing faithless electors is quite questionable.
Thumper Thinker Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 234	__________________ Two cents from Tennessee.

25th October 2004, 03:29 PM	#32
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 16,761	Quote: Originally posted by agnostic_god If the 2004 election were actually that close, it would instantly turn into a huge mess in the courts because both sides are ready with their armies of lawyers to file suits wherever they deem it helpful. What happens if the results are still going through the courts when the new president is supposed to be sworn in? Is there a precedent?
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

25th October 2004, 03:30 PM	#33
Thumper Thinker Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 234	Quote: Originally posted by CapelDodger What happens if the results are still going through the courts when the new president is supposed to be sworn in? Is there a precedent? 2000 was the precedent. USSC will hear the case and hand down a final decision as quickly as possible.
Thumper Thinker Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 234	__________________ Two cents from Tennessee.

25th October 2004, 04:43 PM	#34
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 16,761	Quote: Originally posted by Thumper 2000 was the precedent. USSC will hear the case and hand down a final decision as quickly as possible. Was the swearing-in delayed last time? "Quickly as possible" could mean months with all those lawyers and dodgy voting machines around. I worked out long ago that the US won't go out with a bang, it'll go out in a welter of litigation. Perhaps the time is at hand.
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

25th October 2004, 05:41 PM	#35
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,143	Quote: Originally posted by Thumper Maine and Nebraska allow for splitting their EV. The congressional districts in those two states go to the winner of that district, with the winner of the state getting the two 'senator' votes. Colorado has a ballot initiative to change their system to alot electoral votes based on % of popular vote, meaning, 5 and 4 (out of their total 9). The interesting part is that if it passes it applies to this election. That means that if it passes, which is highly unlikely at this point, the winning party in Colorado will vigorously challenge the law in court, having just lost 4 electoral votes. Quote: Faithless electors happen infrequently. I believe the last one we had was a vote for Bentsen in 84. Before then, it was Reagan in 76. Many states legally require the electors to vote for whom they originally stated. However, punishing faithless electors is quite questionable. I heard that WV this year has a Bush elector who has stated he will vote for Kerry. Anyone have confirmation of that?
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert