What happens if...

[Petra]

...the election is a tie?

As I understand it - just learned this about 10 mins ago on a political commentary piece on the news and would like to make sure I 'get it' - should the election be a tie, the vote then goes to the House of Representatives who choose the President, and they usually go Republican (?); then the vote goes to the Senate to vote on who'll be Vice, and they usually choose Democrat (?), and so the US could end up with a Bush/Edwards leadership or at a long shot, a Kerry/Cheney team.

Is that how it goes?

I only caught bits of it, so I'm unsure of my recollection and understanding of what happens in this rare instance.

Has there been any combo leaderships in US history?


Either way, wouldn't that be a totally rad situation!

[trendkill]

I think that's true either in the case of a tie, or in the event that neither candidate gets 270 electoral votes. So in theory Bush could lose the popular vote and the electoral vote, and yet still be reelected by the House of Representatives.

[Petra]

He may be reelected in such a situation, but surely he would be kept in check more, and forced to be more transparent, by having to accommodate the greater political clout of a Democrat Vice Prez?

[The Lone Ranger]

Since both the House and Senate are in the hands of Republicans now, if it came down to that, I don't think there's much chance of them picking anyone other than Cheney to be Vice President.

Sadly, the voters in 2000 made it abundantly clear that Bush did not have a mandate. That didn't stop him from claiming that he did and running the country exactly as he saw fit, though.

In this country, the Vice President has almost no real power, except to cast the deciding vote in the the event of a tie vote in the Senate. So, I think Bush could and would ignore a Vice President who was at odds with him, especially since he wouldn't have to worry about re-election.

*Sigh*

Michael

[Petra]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Since both the House and Senate are in the hands of Republicans now, if it came down to that, I don't think there's much chance of them picking anyone other than Cheney to be Vice President.

Hmmm, that's a bummer.

In this country, the Vice President has almost no real power, except to cast the deciding vote in the the event of a tie vote in the Senate. So, I think Bush could and would ignore a Vice President who was at odds with him, especially since he wouldn't have to worry about re-election.

*Sigh*

Michael

He may have to be more careful to avoid impeachment, though, wouldn't he? And, gawd, think of the leaks?! The White House would look like a sieve, it'd be so full of holes!

[wade-w]

The original procedure for choosing the Vice President was that while the cadidate with the most electoral votes became President, the candidate with the second most votes was then elected to the Vice Presidency. So yes, the first several administrations were all "combo leaderships" by default. At least, until the process for choosing the Vice President was amended.

As The Lone Ranger notes, the Vice President has little power, and no official input on policy or anything else. He is officially the President of the Senate, which is mostly a ceremonial position; he only gets a vote if the Senate is tied. Even this function is so weak that the real political leader of the Senate (the Sentorial equivalent of the Speaker of the House) has an official title as well, President Pro Tem.

To answer your other question, if no candidate has a clear majority in the Electoral College, then the House of Representatives holds a vote to elect the President. Since the House is currently Republican, this would in effect mean Bush would be reelected. This has happened before, but I am too lazy right now to look up the details.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by lunachick

He may have to be more careful to avoid impeachment, though, wouldn't he? And, gawd, think of the leaks?! The White House would look like a sieve, it'd be so full of holes!

Ooh! Good point!

It would be a lot harder to run his cryptofascist agenda under those circumstances.

Oh, I would so dearly like to see Bush impeached. And then tried for war crimes.


Cheers,

Michael

[wade-w]

Originally Posted by lunachick

He may have to be more careful to avoid impeachment, though, wouldn't he? And, gawd, think of the leaks?! The White House would look like a sieve, it'd be so full of holes!

Not really. Impeachment of the President is a function of the House, and if impeached, the Senate then prosecutes. I can't imagine a majority Republican House bringing impeachment proceedings against a Republican President. And there is no requirement that the Vice President be included in anything, so leaks are not necessarily a problem.

[Dingfod]

Wouldn't the Prez and the Veep be chosen by the newly elected Congress not the current Congress? If that is the case, the Senate could well have a Democrat majority and we'd end up with a Bush-Edwards administration? I mean, Karl Rove is probably going to be wanted by the FBI when they find out he made and starred in the Azzan the American al Qaeda video*, so what would Bush do without his brain? Especially when the International War Crimes Court will have a warrant for Bush himself.

*My theory that this video was Roverboy's October surprise he claimed to have up his sleeve. I've seen video stills in which Azzan's eyes and eyeglasses bear a strong resemblance to Roverboy. Voiceprints anyone? Didn't it seem like Azzan the American spoke with a bit of a Texas accent? He sounded a lot like Roverboy. [conspiracy nut mode off]

[Petra]

wade-w, thanks!


I think the idea is kinda cool, even if the reality is not so great.

[Petra]

Originally Posted by warrenly

Wouldn't the Prez and the Veep be chosen by the newly elected Congress not the current Congress?

So, it is possible?

[wade-w]

Originally Posted by warrenly

Wouldn't the Prez and the Veep be chosen by the newly elected Congress not the current Congress? If that is the case, the Senate could well have a Democrat majority and we'd end up with a Bush-Edwards administration?

My first reaction is to say no, because the newly elected Congress would not be sitting yet. But I'm not positive, so I'm going to have to go look it up. Damn you Warrenly! I wanted to be lazy tonight!

[Petra]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It would be a lot harder to run his cryptofascist agenda under those circumstances.

One of the thoughts I had as I was entertaining a mixed leadership was the fact that it forces such polar opposites to work together - and I mean that in the general population as much as I do the Halls of Power. Could be a positive thing (if it were at all possible) that may help to heal the deep and bitter social and political rifts that have been brewing within American society these last few years.

Or not.

[Dingfod]

From this link:

January 6, 2005 - Counting of Electoral Votes: Congress meets in a joint session to count the electoral votes. Any member of Congress may challenge any electoral vote. If this occurs, the House and Senate must vote on whether to accept or reject the vote. A simple majority vote of both chambers is required to reject an electoral vote.

I love it when I'm right. It happens so infrequently.

Oh yeah, the new Congress is seated Jan. 3rd.

[Petra]

Thanks for your replies, guys. Much appreciated.

I'm going to have some dinner and watch Palin in the Himalayas for awhile, so I'll be back in a couple of hours or so.

Thanks again.

[wade-w]

Originally Posted by warrenly

From this link:

I love it when I'm right. It happens so infrequently.

Oh yeah, the new Congress is seated Jan. 3rd.

OK. My only concern about the answer was when does the new Congress get seated. If no candidate wins a clear majority, then the House is required to immediately begin their own voting process. Each state gets one vote, and to win a candidate must get a majority (i.e. 26) of the votes. Which is interesting, since theoretically even with a majority Republican House if the distribution of Democrats to Republicans is just right a tie in the Electoral College could still give Kerry the Presidency.

Unlikely, but fun to fantasize about.

[Dingfod]

That is unlikely given that the majority of states have Republican representation. The Democrat states are more populous, but that's not how they vote it, it is by state, just as fucked up as the Electoral College. So, it is still possible that Kerry wins a majority of the votes nationwide, ends up tied in the Electoral votes and then loses to Bush in the House, even if by chance Democrats are in the majority there. However, the Senate votes by simple majority for Veep, so if Dems control it, Edwards could win. We sure wouldn't want a tie there too, because Cheney, being President of the Senate would cast the tie-breaker. Imagine him not voting for himself.

[wade-w]

I think we're saying the same thing here, warrenly. Since the vote in the House is by state, if the distribution of one party to the other in each state's delegation is just right, then it might not matter who has majority control of the House.

[Dingfod]

Right. I say we junk the whole thing and go to direct election of the president of Oceana.

[Petra]

Here's an article by the BBC that addresses this, also.

I haven't read it, yet...just about to, but thought I'd just pop it in here for y'all, too.

Oops. Forgot the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3955757.stm

[Petra]

Okay, read it now.

It's a short, but informative article that takes a few different scenarios into account. Good read.

[Dingfod]

I just remembered, Puerto Rico got fucked by the Federal Courts when they disallowed them having 8 electoral votes. Puerto Rico has Congressional representation but no electoral votes and in October of 2000, they cancelled their presidential election. What say we give them an odd number of electoral votes and reduce the possibility of a tie to zero when there are only two viable presidential candidates?

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by warrenly

I just remembered, Puerto Rico got fucked by the Federal Courts when they disallowed them having 8 electoral votes. Puerto Rico has Congressional representation but no electoral votes and in October of 2000, they cancelled their presidential election. What say we give them an odd number of electoral votes and reduce the possibility of a tie to zero when there are only two viable presidential candidates?

1. I dont think puerto rico should have any representation, because they arent a state.

2. Currently puerto rico has no representation in our congress which makes sense as they dont pay federal taxes.

[Dingfod]

Well, I'll be hornswoggled. I swear I learn something new every day.

[wade-w]

As I understand it, Puerto Rico (along with other US Territories such as Guam, the Virgin islands, etc.) have a Congressional Delegation in the House, but the members have no vote, so it's mostly for show, and a bit of lobbying.