4mo ago

It's Possible Harris and Trump Tie 269-269 in the Electoral College.

www.270towin.com Electoral College Ties - 270toWin

How is the president elected if the electoral vote ends in a tie or no candidate reaches 270 electoral votes?

As this recently updated article discusses, while extremely unlikely, given the way this timeline is going it's possible the electoral college ends in a tie. Nate Silver projects this as a .3% possibility.

Things to think about:

Only about half of the states require their electors to vote for the person that won their state. Who are the electors? Generally no one you know.
If there's a tie, the House elects a president and the Senate elects a VP. Sub-consideration: it is the composition of the House and Senate after the November election that makes those determinations.
This would all technically be decided on January 6th. And you remember how that went last time.

Regardless, it's highly unlikely this will happen. Still, this would be utter and complete madness. There is literally a non-zero chance we have a Trump/Harris administration. 🤣

You're viewing a single thread.

36 comments

The dems really need to focus on getting rid of the electoral college. It has cost them too many elections where they have won the popular vote.
- It can't really be removed because it's part of the Constitution. That would take an amendment and the bar for doing that is just too high right now.
  There is an alternate plan for states to just agree to cast their EC votes for whoever the national popular vote winner is, but that plan doesn't kick in until enough states agree that total to 270.
  Currently sitting at 209:
  https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation
  
  Republicans have shown, you don't need to amend the Constitution. You just need to appoint the people who "interprete" it.
  
  Takes 50 years and multiple appointments.
  Right now the court is 6-3. The two oldest judges are on the 6 side, Thomas and Alito.
  If we're super lucky, Harris will win in 2024 and get to replace 1 or both of them before 2028.
  I feel safe in saying, neither one will voluntarily step down knowing a Democrat will replace them, so it's VITAL to get Harris in in BOTH '24 AND '28.
  Thomas was born in '48, Alito in '50. So in '28 we're looking at an 80 year old and 78 year old. 84 and 82 in 2032. 88 and 86 in 2036.
  These ages are not unheard of. Ginsburg was 87 when she died.
  So we might not have a chance to reverse the 6-3 court until 2036/37/38?
  All it will take is ONE Republican President between now and then to go "You know what, why don't you step down so I can nominate somebody younger and lock in the conservative majority for another 50 years..."
  Like Trump did with Justice Kennedy and Kavanaugh.
  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/04/trump-family-anthony-kennedy-brett-kavanaugh-dark-towers
  Even if they die and Harris or another Democrat replaces them, that flips the court from 6-3 (R) to 4-5 (D) and the next two oldest judges are Sotomayor (born 1954), appointed by Obama, and Roberts (born 1955), who has been more moderate on most issues than the other conservative judges.
  So to undo the current makeup of the court, the Democrats have to keep the Presidency starting in 2024 and running through at least 2040. 16 years.
  FDR/Truman was 1933 to 1953 so there is precedent, but that was before the 2 term limit. Since then, no single party has been able to hold for more than 12 years, Reagan, Reagan, Bush.
  Eisenhower (R) - 8 Years
  Kennedy/Johnson (D) - 8 Years
  Nixon/Ford (R) - 8 Years
  Carter (D) - 4 Years
  Reagan/Bush (R) - 12 Years
  Clinton (D) - 8 Years
  Bush II (R) - 8 Years
  Obama (D) - 8 Years
  Trump (R) - 4 Years
  Biden (D) - 4 Years
  
  Or they could expand the court and have one Supreme seat for each appellate court.
  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/democrats-introduce-bill-expand-supreme-court-9-13-justices-n1264132
  
  Doing it through any method other than an amendment would just enter into a war of increased sizes. "Oh? You increased the size to 13? We're doing 17, removed!"
  Eventually, we're all judges.
  
  If we can't change the court, why not force them into an ideological corner? Challenge the law that artificially limits the size of the house on Constitutional grounds. By going originalist thinking, the house should have 1 rep per lowest population state. This would allow higher population states to massively increase the number of representatives. The electoral collage number is Constitutionally based on the number of senators (2) per state, plus the number of representatives. This allows all votes to be equal.
  
  The OG plan was 1 Congressman per 30,000 population, which right now would mean 11,000 congressmen. 😳 You think 435 is dysfunctional...
  
  There's ways to... speed things up a bit.
  
  You never know until you try. I mean look at Republicans — they’ve been beating the anti-abortion drum since Phyllis Schlafly. And now abortion has been made illegal. Maybe the dems should at least start talking about it rather than just accepting defeat.
  
  An amendment starts with 290 votes in the House, a body who can't even get a simple 218 vote majority to decide who their own leader is. 290 is out of reach.
  If, by some miracle, they get that, then it needs 67 votes in the Senate, a body blocked by a 60 vote filibuster requirement.
  Assuming they somehow get both of those, it then goes to the states for ratification.
  You need 38 states, and since the losers of the popular vote have all been Republicans, that means getting all 25 Biden states from 2020 + 13 Trump states.
  Even then, the base of 25 states isn't guaranteed as only 19 of them have Democratic state houses. So now you may need as many as 19 Trump states?
  So, yeah, an Amendment is not in the cards. Flip it around, let's say the Republicans want an amendmement to ban abortion nationwide... not going to happen.
  
  That schoolhouse rock song is playing in the background.
  
  🎼🎶🎵🎶"In 1787 I'm told..."🎶🎵
  https://youtu.be/RnVmIrAiQB8
  
  he’s just gonna stay a bill with that attitude
  
  Nah he’ll get passed. But somehow a bunch of other things will get tacked onto him and suddenly it’s not a voter bill but more military funding and corporate tax breaks.
  
  We could just do the representatives like we used to and the EC works again.
  
  Man, if only! Congress is dysfunctional now with 435 members.
  If we appointed them per 30,000 population, we would have 11,000 congressmen. 😳
  
  I don't think its dysfunction has anything at all to do with having too many members. A significantly larger House may even end up being much less corrupt and more functional, at least after the growing pains.
  
  I don't think each comgresscritter should have a single vote in the house. 435 Congress people should be casting 335 million votes, one for each constituent they represent.
  
  The objective of NPVC is great, but it won't work. If it ever comes online (which is incredibly unlikely), it will be immediately repealed the very first time it would actually have any effect, by every state that finds itself with electors voting against their own electorate. It probably wouldn't even pass judicial review since it explicitly requires electors to ignore their own constituents in favor of the nation as a whole.
  It's a pipe dream.
  
  That and the first time it would reverse an election the participating states want.
  These states are voting for it because of Bush 2000 and Trump 2016, but the minute a Republican candidate wins the popular vote and loses the EC... REEEEEE!
- The Republicans haven’t won the popular vote for the Presidency since George W. Bush’s second term, and he was riding a high from his post-9/11 actions; he lost the popular election to Gore the first go round. The last time a Republican won the popular vote for their first term was George Bush Sr. in 1988.
  
  And there are accusations the Ohio 2004 election was rigged for Bush.
  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/republican-it-guru-dies-in-plane-crash/
- But that would mean doing something that doesn’t immediately benefit the rich. No can do.

36 comments