The Constitution outlines what follows in case of a tie, which has happened only once, in 1800. The newly elected House of Representatives chooses the president from the top three finishers; each state has one vote. The newly elected Senate chooses the vice president; each senator has a vote.
This time, the process presumably would favor Bush. Republicans control 30 of the 50 state delegations in the House; the GOP almost certainly will keep control in the November elections. Republicans now have 51 Senate seats. But if Democrats regain an edge in the Senate — which is conceivable — the choice for vice president could get interesting.
A George W. Bush-John Edwards administration?
I would almost like to see this happen, just to see how the next 4 years would go. It'd make for some interesting times, for sure.
Makora
Too often it seems it is the peaceful and innocent who are slaughtered. In this a lesson may be found that it may not be prudential to be either too peaceful or too innocent. One does not survive with wolves by becoming a sheep.
Bush...well you see, my vice presidents a fucking douchebag, so just dont listen to him, iran has WMDs
edwards...the economy sucks, cmon guys please try to impeach that asshole
Kerry Cheney would be even better..that alone would be worth the comedy
...cant these assholes in the event of a tie go by the democratic way? THE POPULAR VOTE
Either way we know may racist, intolerant, regressive and apparantly anti-democracy bush supporters (Zel Miller fits all those) are deeply against the un-american thing..which would be, ohmygosh a democratic election!
-xzionis human mage on mannoroth
-zeltharath tauren shaman on wildhammer
For future historians, this outcome would prove interesting. As far as the politicians are concerned, it shouldn't have any significant impact. The Office of the Vice-President of the United States is largely powerless, so in some meaningful ways it really doesn't matter who is sitting in that seat (unless/until something happens to the President).
It would secure G'Dubyah's place in the history books, though. He would have the distinction of being the man who won two terms without winning the popular vote. I imagine that the Founding Fathers would consider that an egregious statistical anomoly to have their electoral college system produce that high unusual result twice in a row for the same man.
If I recall correctly, wasn't the 92 and 96 election filled with three candidates, none of whom got the popular vote? I was too young at the time to really pay attention (I would have been 8 and 12 during election years) but I thought Clinton never got the majority, just a plurality. Granted, he still had the most popular votes when he won the electoral college, he just didn't gather a majority of the popular vote.
Kaldaur wrote:If I recall correctly, wasn't the 92 and 96 election filled with three candidates, none of whom got the popular vote? I was too young at the time to really pay attention (I would have been 8 and 12 during election years) but I thought Clinton never got the majority, just a plurality. Granted, he still had the most popular votes when he won the electoral college, he just didn't gather a majority of the popular vote.
I stand corrected. I should have said "after losing the popular vote".
Kaldaur wrote:If I recall correctly, wasn't the 92 and 96 election filled with three candidates, none of whom got the popular vote? I was too young at the time to really pay attention (I would have been 8 and 12 during election years) but I thought Clinton never got the majority, just a plurality. Granted, he still had the most popular votes when he won the electoral college, he just didn't gather a majority of the popular vote.
I stand corrected. I should have said "after losing the popular vote".
archeiron wrote:For future historians, this outcome would prove interesting. As far as the politicians are concerned, it shouldn't have any significant impact. The Office of the Vice-President of the United States is largely powerless, so in some meaningful ways it really doesn't matter who is sitting in that seat (unless/until something happens to the President).
Actually as Cheney has shown the office of the Vice President is not largely powerless, mostly because the VP is also the President of the Senate and in a Senate that is so close when the vote is 50-50 the deciding vote is cast by the President of the Senate. Early on in the Bush presidency Cheney broke a lot of tie votes.
Crav Veladorn
Darkblade of Tunare
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein
