269-269 tie scenario to BLOW YOUR MIND

The Senate is there to balance protection of the small vs the big.

No, it isn't. The Senate was created as a safeguard against too much federal power over the states. Of course, that got thrown right out the window with the 17th Amendment hence the reason why the federal government has turned into leviathan pushing unfunded mandates on states and intruding in our everyday lives.
 
But if the VP needs to then be chosen by the Senate, they will vote for Ryan, not Biden Why?

Because the Senate will be in GOP hands after the election.

That's starting to look like a big if. GOP is losing Maine as independent King will likely caucus with the Dems. Akin blew it in Missouri. Scott Brown's reelection is looking increasingly shaky. Indiana and Arizona are now tied races. Wisconsin, Montana, and Virginia are all 50/50 at this point. The only sure races the GOP will take in the Senate are North Dakota and Nebraska. They need to win at least three more in order to get a 51 seat majority without losing any other current seat besides Maine.
 
Amazing that such an outdated system seems so popular with people in a modern country. No other major democracy involves itself in such a ridiculous relic of the past. What is the interest in defending it?
 
Doesn't matter if the Senate is in GOP hands after inauguration, because the selection for VP in case of a tie is done by this term of the Senate.

Hasn't anybody read the 12th Amendment?
 
Amazing that such an outdated system seems so popular with people in a modern country. No other major democracy involves itself in such a ridiculous relic of the past. What is the interest in defending it?

What makes it ridiculous and how is the way "other major democracies" do things the least bit relevant?
 
Doesn't matter if the Senate is in GOP hands after inauguration, because the selection for VP in case of a tie is done by this term of the Senate.

Hasn't anybody read the 12th Amendment?

Yes. It doesn't specify which term of the Senate. I was under the impression it was the newly elected Senate as well.
 
Doesn't matter if the Senate is in GOP hands after inauguration, because the selection for VP in case of a tie is done by this term of the Senate.

Hasn't anybody read the 12th Amendment?

That would be hard to do as the Electoral College votes are not counted until after the new term begins. The code says January 6th, though the Constitution is silent on the date. However, the Constitution is quite clear on the ending of congressional terms (Jan 3).

Don't forget, the 12th was modified by the 20th when the dates for terms of office were changed.

The Constitution states the House shall "immediately" choose the new President after the EC votes are counted. The word "immediately" is not used in reference to the Senate choosing the VP.

What is interesting is the possibility of no one having control of 26 delegations. In this case there is no President (only an acting one) until the House can meet the 26 delegation standard ... even if it takes 4 years.

It might even be theoretically possible for a 50-50 Senate to run out the clock to Jan 20 on Biden's tiebreaker, since 17 Republicans need to be present for a quorum. Acting-President Boehner?
 
A new term cannot begin until the EC votes are counted: that is a constitutional impossibility.

They are counted by the lame duck House and Senate.
 
A new term cannot begin until the EC votes are counted: that is a constitutional impossibility.

They are counted by the lame duck House and Senate.

This is incorrect. The Constitution, in the 20th Amendment, clearly starts Congressional terms at noon on the 3rd of January. Presidential terms start at noon on the 20th.

The EC votes are counted on January 6th, though they are cast in December.
 
They will be counted in case of a tie by the lame duck Congress. Why is that hard for you to understand?

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/80oct/deadlock2.htm

"A party that is losing power from the lame duck Congress to the new one, such as the Federalists of 1800, may write the rules to make it harder for the opposition to elect its candidate when the new House of Representatives meets to pick the President. For instance, would votes be by sealed ballot or by voice roll call? Voice voting would allow strategic switching by states that come late in the alphabet. Would individual votes be secret? Such secrecy would work to the disadvantage of representatives from single-district states, whose votes would necessarily be known, but it would greatly reduce the effect of bargains: who wants to deal when there is no way to know if the other side has welshed?"
 
Last edited:
They will be counted in case of a tie by the lame duck Congress. Why is that hard for you to understand?

Your quote points out that the lame duck can only rewrite the rules to "make it harder" for the new congress. Did you read your own source?
 
21 states have unbound electors who could switch their votes before the tie ever happened...

...I think...

Any elector can switch his vote. It might be illegal depending on the state.

However, it's far harder to see any elector that would do so if their candidate would otherwise get to 270. These are extreme partisans specifically picked in order to be sure votes. It's really hard to see an Obama elector going Romney or vice-versa.

Yes, every once in a while someone makes a "statement" vote - it actually happened last time (or was that 2004?) when a DC elector didn't vote for the Dem to protest DC's lack of Congressional representation. It's virtually impossible to see any elector choosing to cost their guy the Presidency.
 
Read the entire article and get back to us.

Which part? The part he quoted, where it outright states the new House chooses the Prez? Or perhaps you mean the bit down below where it talks about the Congress in 1948 potentially trying to move the date up into the lame duck term? You know, the paragraph before the article points out that such a move is probably unconstitutional via the 20th Amendment.
 

Forum List

Back
Top