Tie Electoral College effect on VP

This topic came up in another thread, so I thought I would repost with a poll.
In the event that no presidential candidate wins a majority of electoral college votes, the election of the POTUS is determined by the House of Representatives with each state getting 1 vote (DC gets zero). The Vice President is elected by the Senate with each Senator getting one vote.
---
I admit that a tie is unlikely. It is much more likely if there is a world changing event in the next few months that allows a third party candidate to run and win some electoral college votes. A third party candidate makes it much more likely that neither Obama or Romney win a majority of 270 votes. As a historical footnote, Harry Byrd won 14 electoral college votes in 1960 and Wallace won 46 electoral college votes in 1968.
--
While we are accustomed to the VP being an aide to the POTUS, the original concept of the position is that it would go to the 2nd place finisher in the presidential election. That concept was changed after the 4th election.
--
Assuming the scenario of a tie in the electoral college vote, the Democratically controlled Senate would be tasked with electing the VP. Leaving aside the matter of the election of the president, could it be possible that the Senate could elect Biden as VP even if Romney is president.
==
Although it would be unusual, it would give the Democrats the presidency if Romney would die, and also they could retain Biden to break ties in the Senate. So far Biden has not cast any tie breaking votes, but Cheney cast 8 tie breaking votes in his eight years in office.
--
In particular if there is a tie electoral vote, it is quite possible that Obama/Biden will still win the popular majority. The Senate may feel that it is fair that the Democrats at least retain the office of the VP.

in 1992, ross perot received 18.9% of the popular vote and still received zero electoral college votes.
so even if a third party candidate were to enter the race,
there is a lot of pressure within the two parties to retain the two-party status quo,
and not to empower a third party movement with electoral college votes.
i personally believe that the senate would elect the vp of romney in your scenario,
mainly because the democrats in the senate are not quite as rabidly divisive as the republicans.
i also do not think that a person (especially obama or biden) would be interested in serving under a president of the opposing party.

Quote: WongBo

in 1992, ross perot received 18.9% of the popular vote and still received zero electoral college votes. so even if a third party candidate were to enter the race, there is a lot of pressure within the two parties to retain the two-party status quo, and not to empower a third party movement with electoral college votes. i personally believe that the senate would elect the vp of romney in your scenario, mainly because the democrats in the senate are not quite as rabidly divisive as the republicans. i also do not think that a person (especially obama or biden) would be interested in serving under a president of the opposing party.

I agree with you that it is difficult to get electoral college votes. I don't think that anyone has done it since 1968. There also are no significant 3rd party candidates right now. It would probably require a global cataclysmic event to create someone at this time. But there still is the possibility of a tie.

While Biden probably wouldn't choose to serve under a Republican POTUS, he might see it as a valuable service to his party. He would still have the power to break ties in the Senate. It would give him a strong bully pulpit to counter the President. If not, there is a possibility of a Republican controlled Senate, House, Presidency, and Vice Presidency. While we're making a list, 5 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices have been nominated by a Republican presidency.

All of these scenarios were raised by a pundit in 2008, including a VP of a different party than the POTUS. The opening sentence of the article is " President Obama, with Vice President Palin? President Biden? President Pelosi? "
269 tie: An electoral college ‘doomsday’? (23 Sep 2008)

According to the WT article Constitutional experts are not even in agreement if it is the outgoing House of Representatives and Senate or the newly elected ones that get to make the vote. So even a basic question like that is subject to lawsuits.

Quote: WongBo

i personally believe that the senate would elect the vp of romney in your scenario,
mainly because the democrats in the senate are not quite as rabidly divisive as the republicans.

Har har har. That is the funiest thing I will hear all day,and I just got up!

On the thread, the Democrats in the Senate would elect the Democrat Candidate for VPOTUS, end of story. If you believe anything else, I have a greate roulette system I will sell you cheap.

Quote: AZDuffman

On the thread, the Democrats in the Senate would elect the Democrat Candidate for VPOTUS, end of story.

Well WongBo does raise one interesting point. The House must choose the POTUS from the Top Three candidates by electoral college vote. In 1824 there were 4 candidates that had electoral college votes.

I am unable to figure out who would qualify for VP. Would it just be Biden and Romney's candidate? Would Obama even be an option at all? What if Biden and Obama are not interested? Can the Democratic Senate elect another candidate of their choice? Can they make Nancy Pelosi the VP? How about Hillary Clinton?

Maybe Biden would take the job for two years. At that point the Democrats may win back control, and they could try and get a favored cihild in as VP who would then run for POTUS in 2016.

Quote: pacomartin

Well WongBo does raise one interesting point. The House must choose the POTUS from the Top Three candidates by electoral college vote. In 1824 there were 4 candidates that had electoral college votes.

I am unable to figure out who would qualify for VP. Would it just be Biden and Romney's candidate? Would Obama even be an option at all? What if Biden and Obama are not interested? Can the Democratic Senate elect another candidate of their choice? Can they make Nancy Pelosi the VP? How about Hillary Clinton?

Maybe Biden would take the job for two years. At that point the Democrats may win back control, and they could try and get a favored cihild in as VP who would then run for POTUS in 2016.

Here is what the Constitution says:

12th Ammendment

"The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the
President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors
appointed; 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. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by
states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this
purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and
a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House
of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice
shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then
the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other
constitutional disability of the President."

24th Ammendment

"Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the
President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon
confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."


Note a few things. There is nothing about the US Senate getting involved. And logically there should not be as the House was supposed to be the people's voice and the Senate (was) the voice of the "states" meaning state governments. Not to digress, but that is why there were no big unfunded mandates before direct election of US Senators, the Senators would be voted out when their actions requiring more medicaid at the state level resulted in a tax increase costing legislators their jobs. Back on track, so no Senate vote, it ends in the house. No Senate vote and no "coin-flip" like when the NFL is out of tiebreakers.

Next, note it says the VP "shall act as President." So the only way the Senate "picks" POTUS is by their VP Vote. (edited after I re-read the clause.)


Finally, note that if VP is vacant, the POTUS "shall" nominate a new VP. Not "may" but "shall." VP has had periods of vacancy for years, but no more. Both Houses must approve. GOP will likely flip the Senate and keep the house, so they could well tell him "it is Romney or nothing gets done." Even Biden would realize it would risk a Constitutional Crisis to not go along here and he would probably nominate a GOP VPOTUS. But you never know.

Quote: pacomartin

This topic came up in another thread, so I thought I would repost with a poll.
In the event that no presidential candidate wins a majority of electoral college votes, the election of the POTUS is determined by the House of Representatives with each state getting 1 vote (DC gets zero). The Vice President is elected by the Senate with each Senator getting one vote.
---
Assuming the scenario of a tie in the electoral college vote, the Democratically controlled Senate would be tasked with electing the VP. Leaving aside the matter of the election of the president, could it be possible that the Senate could elect Biden as VP even if Romney is president.

Yes. Very.
It is also possible that the Senate could elect Biden President but the House get into some sort of deadlock, especially if there are three candidates (note that the House chooses from the top three Presidential candidates, but the Senate chooses from only the top two VP candidates), and there is no elected President by January 20, in which case Biden becomes acting President until the deadlock is resolved.

There is, however, one assumption you are making.
The counting of the Electoral votes takes place on January 6 (Title 3, Section 15, United States Code).
However, the newly-elected Senate takes over on January 3 (20th Amendment).
It is possible that the Republicans can gain control of the Senate by then. Of course, if it is a 50-50 tie, Joe Biden is still Vice President until January 20, so he does keep his tiebreaking vote, and yes, he can vote for himself.

My answer to the poll would be, "The Senate would elect Biden if the Democrats have 50 or more Senators in the new Congress, and Romney's candidate if the Republicans have 51 or more."

Quote: AZDuffman

Here is what the Constitution says:

12th Ammendment

"The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the
President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors
appointed; 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. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by
states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this
purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and
a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House
of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice
shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then
the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other
constitutional disability of the President."

Note a few things. There is nothing about the US Senate getting involved.

Now, read the rest of the 12th Amendment:

"The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

The Senate is very much involved.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Now, read the rest of the 12th Amendment:

"The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

The Senate is very much involved.

I went back and edited this before your post, probably at the same time you were writing it. Like a lot of things, the Founders wanted decisions and power to be very, very indirect. They might have been the most thoughtful group of people put together at one time in history.

The 12th Amendment is about fifteen years newer than constitution itself. That said, do you consider those writers to be the Founders?

Also, where is Biden on the general left/right scale?

Quote: thecesspit

The 12th Amendment is about fifteen years newer than constitution itself. That said, do you consider those writers to be the Founders?

For the most part. Jefferson was still a Founder and he was POTUS years later.

The 12th just reflected the reality of parties. After Washington left we thankfully had no single-unifying force. Had we been one-party rule we would have become Mexico before there was Mexico.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Now, read the rest of the 12th Amendment:

"The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

The Senate is very much involved.

Personally, I consider the country up until 1824 as being run by the Founding Fathers, and the constitution up until the 12th amendment to be their creation. It was at this point that the country passed on to the next generation.

In the 1824 election, the multi-party system had dissolved. All four presidential candidates were running on the same party ticket. The Vice Presidential Candidate was running with the top two presidential candidates.

That is why the VP had the majority of the electoral college votes. In this particular case the Senate didn't get involved since the VP had won the election.

In the modern system, the Senate must be involved in electing the VP.

BTW: After the 1960 presidential election had a popular vote that differed by about 0.33%, and they knew they were giving D.C. the right to vote for the 1964 presidential election, you would think that would be the time to increase the size of the House by 1. If not, they should have given D.C. only 2 electoral college votes.

I violently disagree with majority of votes here that says the Senate would pick the VP candidate of Romney just for stability. The position of VP has some power, and the grim possibility of great power. Nobody gives that up easily in politics. In particular the power to settle tie votes in the Senate.

Even if the Democrats have a majority in the Senate of one vote, uou never know when an election can turn or someone can die at any time. Remember the governor can choose an interim Senator (unlike a Representative), and a Republican governor can choose a Republican senator. That would make the position of VP very important.

Weren't there times in U.S. history when we didn't have anybody as vice president?

Quote: Wizard

Weren't there times in U.S. history when we didn't have anybody as vice president?

There were actually 18 times that the office was vacant, and for periods that in some cases were many years. There was no provision in the constitution to fill it if it became vacant for any reason (death, ascension to the presidency, or resignation).

Most people should know the circumstances for the last 5 vacancies.

1. Vacancy by death : April 20, 1812 - March 4, 1813
2. Vacancy by death : November 23, 1814 - March 4, 1817
3. Vacancy by resignation: December 28, 1832 - March 4, 1833 (John C. Calhoun resigned to enter Congress)
4. Vacancy by ascension: April 4, 1841 - March 4, 1845
5. Vacancy by ascension: July 9, 1850 - March 4, 1853
6. Vacancy by death: April 18, 1853 - March 4, 1857
7. Vacancy by ascension: April 15, 1865 - March 4, 1869
8. Vacancy by death: November 22, 1875 - March 4, 1877
9. Vacancy by ascension: September 19, 1881 - March 4, 1885
10. Vacancy by death : November 25, 1885 - March 4, 1889
11. Vacancy by death: November 21, 1899 - March 4, 1901
12. Vacancy by ascension: September 14, 1901 - March 4, 1905
13. Vacancy by death : October 30, 1912 - March 4, 1913
14. Vacancy by ascension: August 2, 1923 - March 4, 1925
15. Vacancy by ascension: April 12, 1945 - January 20, 1949
16. Vacancy by ascension: November 22, 1963 - January 20, 1965
    .
    Constitution amended to allow the position of VP to be filled
    .
17. Vacancy by resignation: October 10, 1973 - December 6, 1973
18. Vacancy by ascension: August 9, 1974 - December 19, 1974
    
    
    In 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt raised the stature of the office by renewing the practice of inviting the Vice President to cabinet meetings, which every President since has maintained. Ironically despite this raise is stature, FDR's vice president , John Nance Garner, was the first one to break from the President and become a bitter political enemy. He objected to FDR trying to pack the Supreme Court.
    
    Truman remarked that the job of the Vice President was to "go to weddings and funerals."
    
    But Nixon more or less defined the modern role as an assistant to the President, and someone who would preside over the cabinet meetings if the president was absent. Now with technology, I am sure the president can virtually be at any cabinet meeting.

Quote: pacomartin

Truman remarked that the job of the Vice President was to "go to weddings and funerals."

I've heard the office described as "a pitcher of warm spit."

Quote: Nareed

I've heard the office described as "a pitcher of warm spit."

In the election of the Whig party ran two candidates William Henry Harrison for POTUS along with Francis P. Granger for VP, and Hugh Lawson White along with John Tyler for VP. Both candidates lost to Martin Van Buren and Richard M. Johnson for the Democratic party.

Van Buren received 170 votes for president, Johnson had received only 147 for vice-president. Although Virginia had elected electors pledged to both Van Buren and Johnson, the state's 23 "faithless electors" refused to vote for Johnson, leaving him one electoral vote short of a majority. For the first time before or since, the Senate was charged with electing the Vice President under the provisions of the Twelfth Amendment. The vote divided strictly along party lines, with Johnson becoming vice-president by a vote of 36 to 16 for Whig Francis Granger, with three senators absent.

Starting after this election in 1840, the presidential election began to look more modern. Each party would run a single presidential candidate paired with a single vice presidential candidate. More importantly, starting in 1840 the presidential campaign along with a "campaign slogan" was invented. The importance of the vice president as a way to get elected was established. But the nation got shocked when their elected candidate got sick on inauguration day and died a month later. Population of the country was not about 17 million.

Quote: AZDuffman

Har har har. That is the funiest thing I will hear all day,and I just got up!

On the thread, the Democrats in the Senate would elect the Democrat Candidate for VPOTUS, end of story. If you believe anything else, I have a greate roulette system I will sell you cheap.

You must have a hell of a roulette system - I'd bet any amount of money that they'd elect the GOP's candidate if the house voted for Romney. FWIW, I'd also bet that the House would elect the Big O in some tie scenarios. For example, if Obama wins Colorado's electoral votes, I think he'll also win their vote in the House despite a 4R-3D House delegation.

Quote: rdw4potus

You must have a hell of a roulette system - I'd bet any amount of money that they'd elect the GOP's candidate if the house voted for Romney. FWIW, I'd also bet that the House would elect the Big O in some tie scenarios. For example, if Obama wins Colorado's electoral votes, I think he'll also win their vote in the House despite a 4R-3D House delegation.

I agree with you about Colorado. There will be a lot of pressure for a House delegate to vote with the popular vote of their state and not with their party affiliation.

The case of a tie electoral college vote will probably come with the Democrats winning the popular vote. Not necessarily the case, but a high probability. There might be a long drawn out battle with recounts.

The Senate might step in and elect Biden as VP just because that will make acting POTUS on January 20th. They might as well have their man in place during the lawsuits and court battles. Especially since the Democrat-majority delegations in the House can block a final decision by refusing to vote.

If the lawsuits finally settle down and Romney is elected POTUS, Biden always has the option of resigning as VP. Under the 25th amendment, Romney can nominate his choice for VP which would presumably be the same person he campaigned with.

In 2000 Washington, D.C. Elector Barbara Lett-Simmons, pledged for Democrats Al Gore and Joe Lieberman, cast no electoral votes as a protest of Washington D.C.'s lack of statehood, which she described as the federal district's "colonial status". She was not punished.

Another scenario is one in which a single elector from a city of an otherwise Republican state (like Atlanta) refuses to cast their vote for Vice President as a protest against Georgia having a winner take all system. Then the vote for POTUS would be even, but the VP vote would be in favor of Biden by one vote. Then the Senate would not have to be involved. That delegate may or may not face prosecution from the State of Georgia, but presumably that person would have lined up defense with the ACLU before making the decision to fail to cast the ballot.

Quote: rdw4potus

You must have a hell of a roulette system - I'd bet any amount of money that they'd elect the GOP's candidate if the house voted for Romney. FWIW, I'd also bet that the House would elect the Big O in some tie scenarios. For example, if Obama wins Colorado's electoral votes, I think he'll also win their vote in the House despite a 4R-3D House delegation.

Not one democrat in the US Senate voted for impeachment of Bill Clinton despite obvious guilt of perjury. To them, it did not matter that a woman who had sued him for sexual harrassment was lied to during the discovery process, ie: perjury. They voted party lines, even with the fact that their party would still hold office. Imagine if it meant LOSING the office. Will of the people would go out the window.

Let me ask this theoretical question based on a very likely outcome. In the 2000 elections

1. Assume for some reason (possibly Buchanan didn't run) and Bush won Wisconsin, New Mexico, New Hampshire instead of Al Gore. These were the three states that were won by Gore by the narrowest margin; Bush only lost those three states by a combined 10,218 votes which was far less than 18,000 votes that went to Buchanan.
2. Assume that Gore won Florida by 500 votes instead of losing by 500 votes.
3. Assume that Gore had the overall popular vote of the nation (highly likely in any circumstance given his 1/2 million vote lead)
4. Assume that the Senate election was the same as reality (which resulted in a split 50 Republican - 50 Democrat Senate)
5. Assume that the House election was the same as reality (which resulted in a 221 Republican - 212 Democrat House)

Now based on those very reasonable assumptions
• Bush would have won 32 states, and Gore 18+ DC (instead of reality Bush 30 and Gore 20+DC )
• After the 2000 election the Republicans controlled the House delegates in 25 states outright.
• Of the 5 states with split delegations 3 of them had popular vote for Bush.
• Delaware has an at-large Republican representative, but the state voted for Gore
• Missouri, West Virginia,Texas, Nebraska and Mississippi had House delegations controlled by Democrats, but they voted for Bush.
• Al Gore as current Vice President would have broken ties in the Senate up until January 20, 2001

In this scenario, I think that Bush would barely have won the House election. Just by virtue that the State's with split delegations would have to vote for the candidate that won the public majority. In any case there would be pressure for the state's representatives to vote for the winner of the state popular election.

But given the 50/50 tie in the senate, (one Senator one vote) with Al Gore breaking the tie, who do you think would have been the Vice President in 2000? Joseph Lieberman (Gore's running mate) or Dick Cheney? Do you think that Al Gore would break the tie in favor of Dick Cheney just to maintain the norm of having the POTUS and the VP the same party?

Incidentally, Joe Lieberman left the Democratic party and became an independent (who usually voted with Democrats). In 2008 he supported McCain for POTUS.

Quote: pacomartin

Let me ask this theoretical question based on a very likely outcome. In the 2000 elections

1. Assume for some reason (possibly Buchanan didn't run) and Bush won Wisconsin, New Mexico, New Hampshire instead of Al Gore. These were the three states that were won by Gore by the narrowest margin; Bush only lost those three states by a combined 10,218 votes which was far less than 18,000 votes that went to Buchanan.
2. Assume that Gore won Florida by 500 votes instead of losing by 500 votes.
3. Assume that Gore had the overall popular vote of the nation (highly likely in any circumstance given his 1/2 million vote lead)
4. Assume that the Senate election was the same as reality (which resulted in a split 50 Republican - 50 Democrat Senate)
5. Assume that the House election was the same as reality (which resulted in a 221 Republican - 212 Democrat House)

Now based on those very reasonable assumptions
• Bush would have won 32 states, and Gore 18+ DC (instead of reality Bush 30 and Gore 20+DC )
• After the 2000 election the Republicans controlled the House delegates in 25 states outright.
• Of the 5 states with split delegations 3 of them had popular vote for Bush.
• Delaware has an at-large Republican representative, but the state voted for Gore
• Missouri, West Virginia,Texas, Nebraska and Mississippi had House delegations controlled by Democrats, but they voted for Bush.
• Al Gore as current Vice President would have broken ties in the Senate up until January 20, 2001

In this scenario, I think that Bush would barely have won the House election. Just by virtue that the State's with split delegations would have to vote for the candidate that won the public majority. In any case there would be pressure for the state's representatives to vote for the winner of the state popular election.

But given the 50/50 tie in the senate, (one Senator one vote) with Al Gore breaking the tie, who do you think would have been the Vice President in 2000? Joseph Lieberman (Gore's running mate) or Dick Cheney? Do you think that Al Gore would break the tie in favor of Dick Cheney just to maintain the norm of having the POTUS and the VP the same party?

Incidentally, Joe Lieberman left the Democratic party and became an independent (who usually voted with Democrats). In 2008 he supported McCain for POTUS.

I think it's most likely that a Dem Senator from a deeply republican state would have voted for Cheney and avoided the tie. Ben Nelson (Nebraska), or Max Cleland (Georgia) would be likely candidates. If the 50/50 tie did persist, yes, I think that Gore would vote for Cheney. But not necessarily to promote a one-party whitehouse. Rather, I think he'd do it to not appear to taint himself and/or his party. Especially when Bush can just ask him to resign or cut him out of all duties, there's not enough upside to voting for himself in that situation.

Quote: rdw4potus

I think it's most likely that a Dem Senator from a deeply republican state would have voted for Cheney and avoided the tie. Ben Nelson (Nebraska), or Max Cleland (Georgia) would be likely candidates. If the 50/50 tie did persist, yes, I think that Gore would vote for Cheney. But not necessarily to promote a one-party whitehouse. Rather, I think he'd do it to not appear to taint himself and/or his party. Especially when Bush can just ask him to resign or cut him out of all duties, there's not enough upside to voting for himself in that situation.

First of all, I don't think he can vote for himself since he was running for President, not for VP. I think the vote would be for the VP candidate, which was Lieberman in 2000. And Bush cannot "cut him out of all duties" because he is permitted to break ties in the Senate by the constitution.

Plus Lieberman is not a relentless pill. He does work with both parties. The opposing parties do work together, even if they denounce each other's positions at times. Not everything is partisan.

Quote: pacomartin

First of all, I don't think he can vote for himself since he was running for President, not for VP. I think the vote would be for the VP candidate, which was Lieberman in 2000. And Bush cannot "cut him out of all duties" because he is permitted to break ties in the Senate by the constitution.

Plus Lieberman is not a relentless pill. He does work with both parties. The opposing parties do work together, even if they denounce each other's positions at times. Not everything is partisan.

lol. yes, I meant vote for Lieberman. And the modern vice presidency is somewhat wasted if only the constitutional duties persist. Someone else would run cabinet meetings and attend weddings and funerals, if nothing else. I think it'd be much more likely for Bush to push Lieberman out and just appoint Cheney. But I still think it's most likely that the members of the senate would make sure a tie did not occur.

Question: Does Gore still break the tie in the new senate? How do things resolve? If the new senate is in session, then the date is on or after January 20th. Doesn't Gore become the president and vacate the vice presidency (at least temporarily) if a new president isn't in place on that day? That's what we said would happen with Biden this year, right?

Quote: rdw4potus

Question: Does Gore still break the tie in the new senate? How do things resolve? If the new senate is in session, then the date is on or after January 20th. Doesn't Gore become the president and vacate the vice presidency (at least temporarily) if a new president isn't in place on that day? That's what we said would happen with Biden this year, right?

Yes, from 1 January - 19 January the VP still breaks ties, but I doubt that anyone would schedule a vote for those three weeks. In the event of a controversy and the new President is not chosen, the Vice President elect acts as President after January 20. If neither of them are chosen, I have to check if it is the sitting President or the sitting VP. I think it is the sitting VP.

The constitution is not clear if it is the sitting House or the House elect that votes on the President. When it happened in 1824, it was the House elect that made the vote in the first week of February, but the lame duck period went all the way until 4 March in those days.

As to the larger question, the VP is not constitutionally required to sit in cabinet meetings. So the POTUS could remove that power from the office. He would obviously think twice about going into surgery, if it is at all possible to delay the operation. I think decorum would reign, the opposite party VP would not fire the Secretary of State while the POTUS is in surgery.

But from 2000-2006 the House majority party was the Republicans. I think if the Democrats had an opportunity to keep the Vice Presidency, they would have taken it.

Quote: pacomartin

Yes, from 1 January - 19 January the VP still breaks ties, but I doubt that anyone would schedule a vote for those three weeks. In the event of a controversy and the new President is not chosen, the Vice President elect acts as President after January 20. If neither of them are chosen, I have to check if it is the sitting President or the sitting VP. I think it is the sitting VP.

Well, according to the 12th Amendment, if the electoral vote count does not produce a President, "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"; however, "immediately" does not appear in the section that mentions that the Senate selects the Vice-President.

As for who would be acting President if there was neither a President-elect or a VP-elect on January 20, the 20th Amendment says that Congress has the right to make a provision for this, and it has:
Title 19, Section 3(a)(1), United States Code: "If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President."

Quote: rdw4potus

I think it's most likely that a Dem Senator from a deeply republican state would have voted for Cheney and avoided the tie. Ben Nelson (Nebraska), or Max Cleland (Georgia) would be likely candidates. If the 50/50 tie did persist, yes, I think that Gore would vote for Cheney. But not necessarily to promote a one-party whitehouse. Rather, I think he'd do it to not appear to taint himself and/or his party. Especially when Bush can just ask him to resign or cut him out of all duties, there's not enough upside to voting for himself in that situation.

Let me change the theoretical question. It is the 2004 election, and Bush/Cheney lost three states (New Mexico, Iowa, and Nevada). In reality Bush won these states by the narrowest margin (roughly 2.5%). Then you would have a tie electoral college vote.

Also assume that Democrats had a majority in the Senate (in reality Republicans did). Don't you think that a Democratic Senate would have elected John Edwards as VP instead of Dick Cheney. Presumably the House would re-elect Bush, but it would give the Democrats that one office. In reality Dick Cheney only broke a tie twice in his second term in office.