2016 Goes to the House

[Skill and Chance]

Suppose McMullin pulls out Utah and Clinton does <0.5% better in MI and PA. 

Republicans had an overwhelming majority of the state delegations, but do they deadlock and hold out for Pence?

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

You do not even have to give UT to McMullin for the 2016 Election to go to the US House, as there were 2 faithless electors in Texas (voting for different Republicans) who would have done that to drop Trump from 270 to 268.

[Skill and Chance]

You do not even have to give UT to McMullin for the 2016 Election to go to the US House, as there were 2 faithless electors in Texas (voting for different Republicans) who would have done that to drop Trump from 270 to 268.

They did that knowing they would not be decisive, so it's not a fair comparison.  Even if they still did the same thing, I highly doubt SCOTUS would let an EC result with a decisive faithless elector stand. 

[Tekken_Guy]

The 2017 House GOP caucus was not nearly as pro-Trump as the 2021 one, so I'd say they'd try to go for Pence instead.

[Alben Barkley]

The 2017 House GOP caucus was not nearly as pro-Trump as the 2021 one, so I'd say they'd try to go for Pence instead.

The problem is they can't. They are Constitutionally bound to pick one of the presidential candidates with the three most electoral votes. The Senate elects Vice President separately.

There's a nonzero chance of a McMullin/Pence administration in this scenario.

But probably they would still elect Trump to avoid pissing off their voters.

[President Johnson]

The 2017 House GOP caucus was not nearly as pro-Trump as the 2021 one, so I'd say they'd try to go for Pence instead.

The problem is they can't. They are Constitutionally bound to pick one of the presidential candidates with the three most electoral votes. The Senate elects Vice President separately.

There's a nonzero chance of a McMullin/Pence administration in this scenario.

But probably they would still elect Trump to avoid pissing off their voters.

Pretty much this.

The only way the "solve" this issue with picking Pence would have been electing him vice president through the senate and the House not voting for a president. In this case, Pence would have assumed the role of acting president on January 20. Theoretically for the entire term, though the US formally would not have had a regular president then, just the vice president performing the powers and duties of the office. It would have been what happened in Season 5 in House of Cards, when Claire temporarily took over as acting president until Frank won the election by taking Ohio.

[NewYorkExpress]

President Evan McMullin, Vice President Mike Pence.

Both Trump and Clinton rage about how the election was stolen.

A constitutional amendment is passed to allow the electoral college to elect a President by plurality as a result.

[Mr. Morden]

The 2017 House GOP caucus was not nearly as pro-Trump as the 2021 one, so I'd say they'd try to go for Pence instead.

The problem is they can't. They are Constitutionally bound to pick one of the presidential candidates with the three most electoral votes. The Senate elects Vice President separately.

There's a nonzero chance of a McMullin/Pence administration in this scenario.

But probably they would still elect Trump to avoid pissing off their voters.

Pretty much this.

The only way the "solve" this issue with picking Pence would have been electing him vice president through the senate and the House not voting for a president. In this case, Pence would have assumed the role of acting president on January 20. Theoretically for the entire term, though the US formally would not have had a regular president then, just the vice president performing the powers and duties of the office. It would have been what happened in Season 5 in House of Cards, when Claire temporarily took over as acting president until Frank won the election by taking Ohio.

Some combination of the Texas faithless electors and the McMullin electors could also team up in the electoral college to do a faithless elector vote for someone else, who might get more support among Congressional Republicans, like Paul Ryan or something.  As long as Ryan or whoever else they want to go with comes in 3rd place in the electoral college, they could elect him in the House, and he'd be president.

[Chips]

Interesting thought!

[Skill and Chance]

The 2017 House GOP caucus was not nearly as pro-Trump as the 2021 one, so I'd say they'd try to go for Pence instead.

The problem is they can't. They are Constitutionally bound to pick one of the presidential candidates with the three most electoral votes. The Senate elects Vice President separately.

There's a nonzero chance of a McMullin/Pence administration in this scenario.

But probably they would still elect Trump to avoid pissing off their voters.

Pretty much this.

The only way the "solve" this issue with picking Pence would have been electing him vice president through the senate and the House not voting for a president. In this case, Pence would have assumed the role of acting president on January 20. Theoretically for the entire term, though the US formally would not have had a regular president then, just the vice president performing the powers and duties of the office. It would have been what happened in Season 5 in House of Cards, when Claire temporarily took over as acting president until Frank won the election by taking Ohio.

There would also be the risk of a Dem House coming in and electing Clinton in Jan 2019 if they picked up enough state delegations, which would bump Pence down to VP.  Of course, nothing is stopping the lame duck GOP House from finally holding the vote and selecting Trump, but if they didn't have the votes in Jan 2017, they almost surely wouldn't have them in Dec 2018 after they just lost.

[BigVic]

An interesting scenario if McMullin won UT.

[Ferguson97]

It's still Trump/Pence but he's seen as having even less legitimacy than he did in our world