If there had been a 269/269 tie

[barfbag]

They would each get 2 Electoral votes and whoever won the popular vote would win the other 2.

[barfbag]

Interesting scenario and 2000 could've easily been a tie too.

[barfbag]

I think it would look highly improper for the Senate to appoint an opposite-party VP, since it would in effect be an open invitation to assassinate the POTUS.  I suspect you'd either have Ryan being appointed with Democrats voting for him or abstaining, or maybe, if Romney loses the popular vote and Democrats are particularly bitter, a compromise candidate acceptable to both sides (perhaps Colin Powell, Joe Lieberman, Dick Lugar etc.).

You're right other than making it an open invitation for an assassination.

[barfbag]

New Jersey and Nevada were also split. Both candidates would each get a vote. To my calculation would be 300 EV for Romney if the House were to vote on the presidency with two electoral votes being awarded for each state won.

[barfbag]

New Jersey and Nevada were also split. Both candidates would each get a vote. To my calculation would be 300 EV for Romney if the House were to vote on the presidency with two electoral votes being awarded for each state won.

In a house vote electoral votes do not matter. The election is decided by house delegation. So if Cynthia Lummis votes for Romney that's one vote, as it it one delegation. If the California representatives all vote for Obama that's is still one vote as it is also one delegation. Therefore is Minnesota, Nevada and New Jersey have split delegations their delegation could not vote, hence the problem stated by this thread.

So it comes down to who wins more states in the House?

[barfbag]

New Jersey and Nevada were also split. Both candidates would each get a vote. To my calculation would be 300 EV for Romney if the House were to vote on the presidency with two electoral votes being awarded for each state won.

In a house vote electoral votes do not matter. The election is decided by house delegation. So if Cynthia Lummis votes for Romney that's one vote, as it it one delegation. If the California representatives all vote for Obama that's is still one vote as it is also one delegation. Therefore is Minnesota, Nevada and New Jersey have split delegations their delegation could not vote, hence the problem stated by this thread.

So it comes down to who wins more states in the House?

Almost, it comes down to who wins a majority of states in the House.  If no one can win a majority, they have to vote again.  However, the GOP controls outright a majority of delegations in the 113th Congress. Assuming no House election results changed and all Representatives voted with their party, Romney would have won the House vote 29-18-3 with a margin 3 greater than the 26 needed to win.

The Virginia Plan was for the House to elect the president. Do you know if it meant whichever candidate won more states within the House or if it came down to the popular vote within the House?

[barfbag]

The Virginia Plan was for the House to elect the president. Do you know if it meant whichever candidate won more states within the House or if it came down to the popular vote within the House?

Neither.  The Founding Fathers were blithering idiots when it came to politics and political parties.  The idea of national political parties over such a large nation as ours struck them as both absurd and dangerous.  There were those who fully expected that once Washington left office most elections would be decided in the House with the Electoral College serving as a means to select five nominees to be discussed by the House.  The idea that people would campaign for the office of president was something most them failed to consider.

However, as far as electing a National Executive was concerned, the Virginia plan called for the National Legislature to elect him without specifying the exact method, tho likely it would have been the two houses sitting jointly and electing him.  In many ways the Electoral College is nothing more than a second congress elected every fourth year for the sole purpose of choosing a President without making him a creature of Congress.

So not just the House, but the House and Senate would get together to vote for a President?