Generally I Disapprove Of Cannibalism, But For The Us Congress, I'll Make An Exception.

[peanutbutter]

Generally I disapprove of cannibalism, but for the US congress, I'll make an exception.

 

If no person is the clear winner in November, the decision about who the next president is falls to congress.

 

Can you imagine the resulting feeding frenzy? There might even be a few fist fights breaking out on the House floor!! Billions and billions of graft (political donations) will be spent.

 

Vote third party ..

[Restorium2]

Generally I disapprove of cannibalism, but for the US congress, I'll make an exception.

 

If no person is the clear winner in November, the decision about who the next president is falls to congress.

 

Can you imagine the resulting feeding frenzy? There might even be a few fist fights breaking out on the House floor!! Billions and billions of graft (political donations) will be spent.

 

Vote third party ..

It would be Romney Biden. It's already decided like that so we have order. Why does that make you want to vote third party? It still makes no sense in this election.

[peanutbutter]

It would be Romney Biden. It's already decided like that so we have order. Why does that make you want to vote third party? It still makes no sense in this election.

 

haha .. you really think they could agree ahead of time? Obama says "go ahead, you be president?"

 

right.

[Restorium2]

haha .. you really think they could agree ahead of time? Obama says "go ahead, you be president?"

 

right.

Rules dude, we have rules that cover this. Basic rules.

[greenbuddha]

Rules dude, we have rules that cover this. Basic rules.

 

And we have MONEY that changes those basic rules.

[Restorium2]

And we have MONEY that changes those basic rules.

Not at this point in the election. The rules are in place and will not be changed before the outcome of this election is settled. If there is no clear winner it will be Romney Biden. It's a well known fact. Just research it a little before you post.

[Restorium2]

Here's a short cut to reality;

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/electiontie.htm

[CaveatLector]

Restorium is right. The US Constitution contains contingency plans for pres and vice pres selection should there be an electoral college tie. Money isn't going to change the const or the selection process between now and January. Restorium could be right about a Romney/Biden selection but I don't know. The US House selects the President and they only get one vote per state. So that vote is decided in a caucas-style election in states where there is more than 1 US Congress member. So, for example, if Michigan has 15 Congress(wo)men then they all vote and whatever the outcome in that vote becomes the ultimate single vote cast for Pres. So, in that way, a Repub. controlled House could still vote a Dem pres into office. Why? Because if TX has 53 congress(wo)men and they are all Repub. they still only have one vote. If Montana has one congress(wo)man it also gets one vote. So if TX were predominantly Repub and Montana were Dem it would still only be a 1:1 vote. So, in that way, a republican controlled house could still vote in a Dem president. So what matters in the house is not the number of Repubs vs. the number of Dems but, rather, the number of repub controlled states vs. the number of dem controlled states. I don't know the current number so I cannot provide that info.

 

The Senate selects the vice pres and each Senator gets a single vote. So that is easier to predict based on the number of senators and their political leanings. Basically one can assume that a repub controlled senate would vote for a repub candidate and a dem controlled would vote dem.

[greenbuddha]

Restorium is right. The US Constitution contains contingency plans for pres and vice pres selection should there be an electoral college tie. Money isn't going to change the const or the selection process between now and January. Restorium could be right about a Romney/Biden selection but I don't know. The US House selects the President and they only get one vote per state. So that vote is decided in a caucas-style election in states where there is more than 1 US Congress member. So, for example, if Michigan has 15 Congress(wo)men then they all vote and whatever the outcome in that vote becomes the ultimate single vote cast for Pres. So, in that way, a Repub. controlled House could still vote a Dem pres into office. Why? Because if TX has 53 congress(wo)men and they are all Repub. they still only have one vote. If Montana has one congress(wo)man it also gets one vote. So if TX were predominantly Repub and Montana were Dem it would still only be a 1:1 vote. So, in that way, a republican controlled house could still vote in a Dem president. So what matters in the house is not the number of Repubs vs. the number of Dems but, rather, the number of repub controlled states vs. the number of dem controlled states. I don't know the current number so I cannot provide that info.

 

The Senate selects the vice pres and each Senator gets a single vote. So that is easier to predict based on the number of senators and their political leanings. Basically one can assume that a repub controlled senate would vote for a repub candidate and a dem controlled would vote dem.

 

Yes, I too, still believe in fairytales. Glad to see I'm not the only one.

[peanutbutter]

Restorium is right. The US Constitution contains contingency plans for pres and vice pres selection should there be an electoral college tie. Money isn't going to change the const or the selection process between now and January. Restorium could be right about a Romney/Biden selection but I don't know. The US House selects the President and they only get one vote per state. So that vote is decided in a caucas-style election in states where there is more than 1 US Congress member. So, for example, if Michigan has 15 Congress(wo)men then they all vote and whatever the outcome in that vote becomes the ultimate single vote cast for Pres. So, in that way, a Repub. controlled House could still vote a Dem pres into office. Why? Because if TX has 53 congress(wo)men and they are all Repub. they still only have one vote. If Montana has one congress(wo)man it also gets one vote. So if TX were predominantly Repub and Montana were Dem it would still only be a 1:1 vote. So, in that way, a republican controlled house could still vote in a Dem president. So what matters in the house is not the number of Repubs vs. the number of Dems but, rather, the number of repub controlled states vs. the number of dem controlled states. I don't know the current number so I cannot provide that info.

 

The Senate selects the vice pres and each Senator gets a single vote. So that is easier to predict based on the number of senators and their political leanings. Basically one can assume that a repub controlled senate would vote for a repub candidate and a dem controlled would vote dem.

 

And I wonder how long all of that would take?

[peanutbutter]

All of this isn't on ANY radar ..

 

No plans have been established about how to run campaigns if the tie happens ..

 

One requirement is that THREE persons be considered by congress. The top THREE candidates.

[Restorium2]

All of this isn't on ANY radar ..

 

No plans have been established about how to run campaigns if the tie happens ..

 

One requirement is that THREE persons be considered by congress. The top THREE candidates.

It has been mapped out for over 200 years now;

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendXII.html

[CaveatLector]

All of this isn't on ANY radar ..

 

No plans have been established about how to run campaigns if the tie happens ..

 

One requirement is that THREE persons be considered by congress. The top THREE candidates.

I don't think there is a requirement that 3 be considered. I think that is a maximum.

 

How do you know there are no contingency plans built into campaigns if this were to happen? I'm sure there are. Unless you are privy to campaign strategy I don't think you would know what the particular candidate is prepared for. I would think that strong lobbying would take place, not unlike lobbying that already occurs ahead of voting on contentious bills.

 

Chances of this happening are pretty slim.