Are you a one issue voter?

[purpleowl]

There's no federal structure for determining how the collection of House Representatives (which often include Representatives from both major parties) within each state have to determine who gets the one state vote.  Individual states may or may not have prospective rules in place, but since it's such a remote possibility, many may not.  So they'd have to duke it out somehow.  

 

If a particular state cannot agree, but 26 other states do agree, then that's that: the winner would be the first past 26 (51% of 50 states).

 

If the House can't get to a 26 state majority by Inauguration Day (which, what are the odds of THAT), then theoretically the (current) Vice President becomes President.  Which, all things considered...    :leaving:

 

 

 

 

(I tell you, taking this all as one very extended civics lesson is the only silver lining I have been able to find.  Because, who knew this.  Not me, for sure.)

 

So...theoretically...we could decide this whole thing via a game of rock, paper, scissors if a deciding state used that to make up its mind. Awesome. 

 

To the bolded, though, it would be the VP-elect (per the 20th amendment), not the current VP, who would become Pres if the House doesn't have a majority by Inauguration Day.

Edited October 17, 2016 by purpleowl

[Pam in CT]

re in the event that the House can't choose between the top 3 Electoral vote winners, the VP becomes president (and, ongoing civics lesson):

 

So...theoretically...we could decide this whole thing via a game of rock, paper, scissors if a deciding state used that to make up its mind. Awesome. 

 

To the bolded, though, it would be the VP-elect (per the 20th amendment), not the current VP, who would become Pres if the House doesn't have a majority by Inauguration Day.

Now that is fascinating, and not something I've yet seen anything written about. 

 

 I see what you mean re 20th Amendment:

 

...If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

 

... but, under the current pick-a-VP-simultaneous-to-pick-a-President system, if the House hasn't yet picked a President, then by definition there would be no VP-elect either, would there.  These days our VPs are chosen simultaneous to our Ps.

 

The second bolded bit seems (?) to suggest that IF no one gets past the 270 Electoral College vote post and it goes to the House as per the 12th Amendment, and IF the House is unable to get past the 26 state vote post by Inauguration Day as per the 12th Amendment, then the 20th Amendment would kick in, and the decision would go to... the full Congress?  Which-- it would, recall, be Inauguration Day-- be the new Congress?

 

I tell you, every time I go around on these hypotheticals, I learn things I've never once thought about before.

 

 

 

 

 

eta verb tense

Edited October 17, 2016 by Pam in CT

[purpleowl]

While the House is voting on a Pres (from the top 3 Pres candidates), the Senate is voting on a VP (from the top 2 VP candidates). That's in the 12th Amendment. So in all likelihood we WOULD have a VP-elect chosen already by the Senate (where it's not done by state delegations, but one-Senator-one-vote).

 

And if the House hadn't decided on a Pres and the Senate hadn't decided on a VP, then (20th amendment)...

 

 

 

Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

[purpleowl]

Oh, also, it would already be the new Congress making these decisions. New Congress begins Jan 3; electoral college results are presented to Congress (by the current VP) on Jan 6. If there's no winner, that's when they start doing their voting.

[Pam in CT]

I'd plumb forgotten that 12th Amendment bit about the House deciding the President while the Senate picks the Vice President.  What could possibly go wrong with that, you wonder.   :lol:

[goldberry]

I'd plumb forgotten that 12th Amendment bit about the House deciding the President while the Senate picks the Vice President.  What could possibly go wrong with that, you wonder.   :lol:

 

If it did ever happen, it might result in a new amendment to fix the process in the years to follow.

[Amira]

We could solve the entire problem with one simple amendment that says the president is chosen by the popular vote.

[eternalsummer]

What I meant was, if it is determined by the electors (instead of the popular vote), and not all electors are bound (I'm fairly certain they're not), then in theory one party could say to the electors in its state - don't cast your vote for the person that won the popular vote in your state, vote for this other person instead.  Then Congress could select that person (if he got enough of the Electors' votes)