Poll

2 votes (28.57%)
4 votes (57.14%)
1 vote (14.28%)
No votes (0%)

7 members have voted

pacomartin
pacomartin
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
July 8th, 2012 at 12:22:24 AM permalink
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.
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7237
July 8th, 2012 at 6:12:32 AM permalink
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.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
pacomartin
pacomartin
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
July 8th, 2012 at 8:48:59 AM permalink
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.
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7237
July 8th, 2012 at 9:18:23 AM permalink
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?
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
pacomartin
pacomartin
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
July 8th, 2012 at 9:33:58 AM permalink
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.
ThatDonGuy
ThatDonGuy
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
  • Threads: 109
  • Posts: 5370
July 8th, 2012 at 10:45:58 AM permalink
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."
pacomartin
pacomartin
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
July 10th, 2012 at 7:29:57 AM permalink
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.

  • Jump to: