If there had been a 269/269 tie

[badgate]

So, we all know Romney would have handily won a House vote for President. However, I'm really curious about Iowa. Two districts are held by Democrats and two are held by Republicans. Would Obama or Romney get the state's vote?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

At that time, the new districts hadn't gone into effect, so Iowa had 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans.  So probably Obama.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

Minnesota was a 4-4 split though, I believe. My guess is that either someone would give in and break the tie (Romney would have well over 25 by that point so it wouldn't even matter), or it might even end with a stalemate and no vote being given. I'm shaky about the latter though.

[tpfkaw]

Minnesota was a 4-4 split though, I believe. My guess is that either someone would give in and break the tie (Romney would have well over 25 by that point so it wouldn't even matter), or it might even end with a stalemate and no vote being given. I'm shaky about the latter though.

Collin Peterson might've broken party lines if it wouldn't effect the outcome and he had permission from leadership.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Remember, it's the incoming House that would vote, so it'd be after Nolan was sworn in, and Minnesota would thus have a 5-3 delegation.

[barfbag]

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

[Fritz]

The state would have probably had to abstain from the House election, unless one member was convinced to vote against their party (not very likely).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And an abstention is as good a vote against whoever is leading.  It takes 26 States to win the Presidency in the house and 51 Senators to win the Vice Presidency in the Senate, no matter how many of them abstain.

[Vosem]

The incoming Congress votes, not the old one. Since nobody could get a majority of the delegation, the state would abstain. (And it has to be a majority of the full delegation, not just a majority of those voting; so for Iowa to vote for one candidate or the other one of its Representatives would've actually had to switch sides.

[barfbag]

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

[TarHeelDem]

The Senate would have voted for VP, correct? My assumption is that this would have lead to a Romney/Biden administration. Then possibly Biden taking on Romney in 2016, VP versus pres?

A man can dream.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Senate would have voted for VP, correct? My assumption is that this would have lead to a Romney/Biden administration. Then possibly Biden taking on Romney in 2016, VP versus pres?

A man can dream.

That assumes a 269-269 tie with the Congressional elections unchanged.  In all likelihood if there had been a tie in the Electoral College, the Republicans would have also done better in the Congress.  That wouldn't affect the House result, but it could affect the Senate.  It takes 51 Senators to elect a Vice President, so the most interesting result would be a 50-50 tie or 50-49 with King (I-ME) abstaining,  The Senate would have continued under the Democratic leadership from the first seventeen days in which the Vice President could have broken the tie on who gets to be PPT and then Leahy would have remained PPT with there being no Vice President.  Altho the applecart would have been spilt when Lautenberg died and Christie appoints Chiesa and the Senate then votes in Hatch as PPT and Ryan as VP both being sworn in shortly after Chiesa.

[tpfkaw]

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.).

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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.).

Aren't contingent elections for Vice President limited to the top two voted for in the Electoral College? If the compromise candidate was chosen before the Electoral College voted then it could work--in which political reality it seems like it might be easier to just have the Electoral College elect the compromise candidate outright--but otherwise it would have to be Biden or Ryan.

[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.

[PolitiJunkie]

I was going to comment about how, if there was a 269/269 tie with Obama winning the popular vote, but House Republicans elected Romney, there would be major backlash and the Democrats would have had an extreme advantage going into 2016, but then I remembered that if there was a 269/269 tie, Romney definitely would have won the popular vote.

[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.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

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.

[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?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[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?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[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?