what if we get 269-269 Electoral Vote Tie!!!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 25, 2004, 11:42 am

here is what has to happen in the swing states:

go Kerry:
Iowa
Michigan
Ohio
Pennsylvania (leaning Kerry heavily atm)

go Bush:
New Mexico
Wisconsin
Florida

that would create 269-269 electoral votes (270 need to win), and then it goes to the Senate?

and if it goes to the senate, is it the newly elected Senators or the existing crop?

and can the VP cast the deciding vote in the senate if he is indeed voting for himself to become VP?

my electoral vote calculator was the NY Times swing states thingee

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » October 25, 2004, 11:49 am

It'd be the existing crop of Senators, as this would occur shortly after the election and any newly elected Senators would have yet to be sworn in. And according to Senate rules, yes the VP would be called on to cast the deciding vote :boggle:

Wouldn't it be ironic if Kerry won the popular vote, ties on electoral votes, ties in the Senate and Cheney votes Bush (and himself) in...

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 25, 2004, 12:11 pm

It would be even more iraonic if Cheney's misvoted for Kerry.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » October 25, 2004, 12:16 pm

cue the Star Trek klingon battlemusic...

FIGHT TO THE DEATH

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » October 25, 2004, 1:20 pm

Give Cheney a Florida ballot. We'll have Ralph Nader elected as President with .8 percent of the popular vote.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » October 25, 2004, 1:27 pm

I thought that the house and senate vote for both positions. I read that it would most likely be a Bush Presidency and an Edwards Vice-Presidency. If it actually came down to that.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » October 25, 2004, 1:36 pm

Or better yet, Kerry/Cheney. Two walking undead in the White House.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » October 25, 2004, 1:54 pm

There'll be a serious outrage if the election ends up being decided by anyone other than the people or the electoral college. Especially if Bush ends up being appointed again instead of elected.

What blows my mind is that hundreds of thousands of banks around the world can operate 8-9 hours a day, almost every day of the week, offer services over the Internet, and offer services via humans and be accurate down to the penny. Yet a single election, once every four years, can't even come close to being accurate.

Go figure.

Mr Bacon · Post by **Mr Bacon** » October 25, 2004, 1:57 pm

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 25, 2004, 2:45 pm

Siji wrote:There'll be a serious outrage if the election ends up being decided by anyone other than the people or the electoral college. Especially if Bush ends up being appointed again instead of elected.

How many states did W win in 2000? How many electoral votes was that?

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » October 25, 2004, 5:38 pm

the best thing that could happen this election would be if bush won the popular vote and kerry won the electoral college clearly

wed get rid of bush and the electoral college at the same time

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 25, 2004, 5:41 pm

Xzion wrote:the best thing that could happen this election would be if bush won the popular vote and kerry won the electoral college clearly

wed get rid of bush and the electoral college at the same time

I would be laughing for months.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 26, 2004, 12:18 am

Rekaar. wrote:How many states did W win in 2000? How many electoral votes was that?

Presidential candidate:George W. Bush
Electoral vote: 271
Popular vote: 50,456,002 47.87%

Presidential Candidate: Al Gore
Electoral vote: 266
Popular vote: 50,999,897 48.38%

edit: from http://www.wordiq.com/definition/U.S._p ... tion,_2000

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » October 26, 2004, 7:57 am

Siji wrote:There'll be a serious outrage if the election ends up being decided by anyone other than the people or the electoral college. Especially if Bush ends up being appointed again instead of elected.

What blows my mind is that hundreds of thousands of banks around the world can operate 8-9 hours a day, almost every day of the week, offer services over the Internet, and offer services via humans and be accurate down to the penny. Yet a single election, once every four years, can't even come close to being accurate.

Go figure.

in an ideal world, do you honestly think dems or repubs want an honest election?

Hell, we still have the electoral college, of course were not going to have an honest election

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » October 26, 2004, 5:16 pm

Voro,
Answers to your questions (found in article II).

1. The House, not the Senate, votes on the president. Because of the ruls of the House (not the Constitution), this vote would be of the new members.

2. The Senate votes on teh Vice President. Because of the rules of teh Senate (not the Constitution), the vote would be of the current members (including, again by Senate rules not the constitution, the current VP as President of the Senate in the case of a tie in the Senate vote).

Thess · Post by **Thess** » October 26, 2004, 6:09 pm

Could be Kerry/Cheney or Bush/Edwards!

Siji · Post by **Siji** » October 27, 2004, 11:16 am

Xzion wrote:
Siji wrote:What blows my mind is that hundreds of thousands of banks around the world can operate 8-9 hours a day, almost every day of the week, offer services over the Internet, and offer services via humans and be accurate down to the penny. Yet a single election, once every four years, can't even come close to being accurate.
in an ideal world, do you honestly think dems or repubs want an honest election?

Hell, we still have the electoral college, of course were not going to have an honest election

I agree with you that I don't believe they want an honest election. What disappoints me is that the American public don't really seem to give a rats ass. Most of us (myself included) take a lot of stuff for granted and just assume that most of what was put in place 200 some years ago will keep on working as intended. Greed however is a powerful AA ability.

We've gone past the point now where the people could actually stage a revolution or do anything drastic to try to change the system as everyone would be called a terrorist and locked away without trial for the rest of their lives. More and more freedoms are taken and less and less people seem to care. I honestly don't forsee much of a change for the better, regardless of who becomes president, unless it's someone that's already independantly wealthy (e.g. Perot, Trump, Gates) and has the country's best interests at heart instead of their own. We need someone who doesn't bow to big corporations and can still get elected by the people.

Edit: No, I wasn't suggesting those names above as good candidates for president, I was giving examples of the type of wealth.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 27, 2004, 11:55 am

LOL thanks Dar, that is pretty interesting. i think we can all agree if the Congress or Supreme Court has to decide this election for us again, it is not a good thing - regardless of what party is the true winner.

MooZilla · Post by **MooZilla** » October 27, 2004, 7:29 pm

Siji wrote:There'll be a serious outrage if the election ends up being decided by anyone other than the people or the electoral college. Especially if Bush ends up being appointed again instead of elected.

What blows my mind is that hundreds of thousands of banks around the world can operate 8-9 hours a day, almost every day of the week, offer services over the Internet, and offer services via humans and be accurate down to the penny. Yet a single election, once every four years, can't even come close to being accurate.

Go figure.

Math is always exact and social science is never exact.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 27, 2004, 9:04 pm

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- A freak tie result in the U.S. presidential election could mean the House of Representatives would choose the next president, a scenario that would favor Republican incumbent Bush.

But since the Senate would decide the vice presidency, Bush could end up with Democrat John Edwards.

Bush: Vice President Edwards, I want you to go to the North Pole and research global warming for the next few years...and quit looking at me with that shit eating grin! Move it!