If neither candidate ends up having 270 votes, who becomes prez?

[Deja Q]

Kerry's at 243 and Apostate* is at 254.

Who decides?

Thx!

[bossfish]

1. Me..

Who's going to win the rest of them?

[bluestateguy]

2. Bush

Anything less than 270 and it goes to the US House, and we know what that means. The US House of Representatives has all the independence from the White House of the old Communist Central Committee from the Kremlin.

[9119495]

3. And doesn't the new senate pick the VP?

Which would mean Kerry is still there and a if we take the senate it would be Bush vs. Edwards--with both weraing bullet proof vests all the time.

Or am I wrong about the senate choosing?

[Deja Q]

5. So if Kerry had 269 and * had 201 or whatever,

* would still win?!

[regnaD kciN]

17. That scenario is virtually impossible...

Since there are only 539 electoral votes, and two candidates with any chance of winning a state, one of the two will get 270 or above.

The only way your scenario could take place is if there is a third-party candidate with enough strength to get more votes than both the Democratic and Republican candidates in a given state (or several). The last time that happened was in 1968 with George Wallace. In other words, to pull that off, you need an extremist candidate whose message (in Wallace's case, racial segregation) is not shared by either of the two major-party candidates and resonantes in a certain specific area of the country (in Wallace's case, the Deep South). In fact, a 2004-era George Wallace would be unlikely to succeed -- what happened in 1968 depended in large part on a specific historical convergence: while the Democrats had lost their previously-solid grip on that region by supporting the Civil Rights Act, the pre-"Southern strategy" Republican Party was still viewed by Southerners as "the party of Lincoln." With a newfound hatred of both major parties, conservative white southerners had nowhere to go but Wallace.

In any event, none of the current third-party candidates has enough of a regional appeal to be able to grab a single state, so either Bush or Kerry is certain to wind up with 270 electoral votes or more.

[Dob Bole]

23. Roy Moore could have done it....

There's no doubt in my mind, being from the area, that Roy Moore could have carried Alabama and had a chance in Mississippi. In those areas, the 10 commandments thing crossed party lines. And in those two states especially, fundyism is the main religion.

Moore was courted to run for the Constitution Party early on, but didn't.

[regnaD kciN]

27. Possibly, but...

...had Moore run and picked up those two states, depriving either candidate of a majority, is there any doubt that he would have then directed his electors to switch to Bush? The same thing would likely have happened in '68; had Nixon not won outright, Wallace would have thrown his electors to Tricky Dick (probably after extracting some promise from Dicky on quietly halting civil-rights enforcement under the new administration...which is pretty much what happened, anyway).

[iamjoy]

28. Not Necessarily

I ran some scenarios through the latimes.com interactive electoral vote tracker and did come up with a situation that would be a tie, don't remember what it was now.

[iamjoy]

6. Yes And Here's What Is Interesting

If no candidate gets 270 electoral votes, the House picks the Pres. Each state delegation gets one vote (regardless of state population or number of reps, so Florida gets one vote, California one, etc). Since a majority of the states have more Repub reps than Dem, we all know the outcome there.

OK, the interesting thing is, the Senate, the NEW Senate picks the VP. So, if the Dems take back the Senate (which is not too likely, but possible) we could have Bush as President and Edwards as Vice President.

And that, would be VERY interesting.

[HFishbine]

12. Question

The senate doesn't necessarily have to pick the guy who was running as VP, does it? Couldn't Kerry end up as VP, or Michael Moore, for that matter?

[sabbat hunter]

8. interesting scenerio

here is something im not sure about. if neither bush nor kerry come up with 270 votes, when would the house or representatives vote?

if i remember right the 'offical' electoral college vote isnt until december and it is ratified the first week in january (remember when Gore had to preside over his own loss in the senate?)

but the new congress is sworn in january 1st. but when would the house of rep vote on the president. if it is after january 1s and the democrats take control of the house, kerry would still win.

but if the vote is before january 1st with the outgoing house they would obviously vote for bush.

when would the house vote on president?


david

[Presidentcokedupfratboy]

16. The House and Senate that come into Office in 1/05

Would pick the President and VP. they have to choose fom amonmg the two highest EV recipients for both offices. The House votes by delegation, the Senate votes as individuals.

[MazeRat7]

4. The House of Representatives will choose the president in that case

[IndianaGreen]

29. We get a better result if we put Bush and Kerry inside Thunderdome

Two men go in, and one comes out. I'll put my money on Kerry!

[ghostsofgiants]

7. Wow

Your electoral system is absolutely fucked.

[Deja Q]

9. Quite. Civil war might be possible too.

If it gets to that point and Kerry does have more than * but under 270, and * is selected, I'll be ducking for cover as all hell WOULD break loose.

A half mil popularity votes didn't sway the Stuporeme Court, but the Electoral College is far more visible.

And, yes, it is a very stupid system.

[olddem43]

10. I agree, we should let Parliament pick the president

[billyoc]

11. Wow

Oh, it gets better. If it's a tie for president in the House, which is possible with 50 states, then the new VP is sworn in as president until the tie is broken. The *best* part is, the Senate can be a tie for electing the new VP too, so the President of the Senate would be the tie-breaker. Guess who that is? The *current* VP of the United States. *So*, if EVERYTHING is a tie, then the new President of the United States is....

Dick Cheney.

Fear a tie.

[olddem43]

14. That would be appropriate, after all, he picked himself for VP

when he was the head of the committee to select a candidate.

[factcheck]

24. No, just complicated...

Since the United States of America is not a Democracy, but rather a Democratic Republic of United States, it can be a bit complicated.

Each state is a sovereign Democracy unto itself with representatives in the Federal government.

It would be sort of like the EU deciding to elect a single President to govern over the entire EU and each country's Prime Minister becoming a Governor. Then tossing in representatives from each country into a Congress.

It gets complicated, but it is as it must be for our country to continue to be the United States rather than just the country of America.

[BillZBubb]

26. WRONG!

The states are NOT sovereign. That is totally incorrect. The states are subject to the laws of congress and the Constitution of the United States.

Plus being a republic has NOTHING to do with any point you are trying to make. The United States is a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. The fact that is is also a republic has nothing to do with state "sovereignty" or representation.

You've been listening to too many uninformed freepers.

[Mizmoon]

13. Mud wrestling with hands tied behind their backs

winner takes all. Kerry's got the height advantage so our odds are good!

[Diana52]

15. eeeek!

You are frightening me! All of you, go outside and get some fresh air!

[SammyWinstonJack]

22. Good advice

Welcome to DU where we often frighten ourselves :silly:

[Unstuck In Time]

18. Whoever calls "dibs" first.

Dibs! I called it! Nyah nyah!

[sofa king]

19. It could get crazier than that.

As I recall, Congress isn't required to choose from among the leading candidates. While it makes perfect sense that the Republicans would lock-step to support Bush, a coalition of clever Republican-leaning moderate states could wreck the entire process on the first ballot and take Kerry AND Bush out of the running.

If that happens, there may be a scramble to find a suitable replacement for Bush. It would have to be someone nominally Republican, but with a more populist appeal. It would likely be someone personally known to most Members of Congress.

John McCain, perhaps?

[wuushew]

20. A Nader or LaRouche longshot perhaps?

I don't see how McCain could be chosen since he wasn't actually a candidate for President this year.

[sabbat hunter]

21. they can choose

from the top two electoral college vote getters if i remember my constitutional law correctly

david

[sofa king]

25. Oops, I think you're right.

Or nearly so. Amendment 12:

"and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President."

It does seem that an elector who sees the writing on the wall could cast a vote for a third person, thus creating the possibility of an alternative candidate in the vote-by-state count.