The 269-to-269 nightmare scenario:

They are certainly not a monilithic group. Thats a silly question.

A whole lot actively support him. And a lot are voting against Hillary. But to say evangelicals as a whole are left behind is nonsense.

 

I guess you don't have a tv.......

hillary is all but toast.......

 

269-269 would be an absolute nightmare for this reason. All of the stuff Mr. Swedish talked about would come true. And that'd be a very sad sight to see. Republicans could do the right thing for the country, but when has the Repubs been selfless?

 

Your wrong. I'm wrong. Thank you for clarifying that.

 

You're joking, right?

 

Actually, just you are wrong. And you are welcome!

 

Elections have consequences, and the Republicans own the House.

 

I never said that they were.

 

This is nothing but a lesson on American elections. Trump will win in a landslide.

 

Not a chance of that.

Hillary Will WIN.

I will be here Wednesday to see how you spin your ridiculous prediction.

By then you will probably have started 100 Fever Swamp conspiracy threads (questioning Hillary's legitimacy), but--if you actually show up to back up your words--I will be here.

 

As already noted a tie in the EC is a win for Trump and most likely Pence.

- - - Updated - - -

To win she must do so with a clear win in the EC count, tie goes to Trump.

 

Here's a thought.

If there is a 269-269 tie, there is a strong moral argument in favour of all House state delegations voting for the candidate with the greater share of the popular vote. If there is a tie but one candidate has a couple of million more votes across the country than the other, it would be undemocratic to select the candidate with fewer votes.

 

There is jjt such moral arguement and the President and VP are elected by the States it is not a national democratic process. You do know we are not a Democracy.

 

I understand the Constitution and how the President is selected in the event no candidate reaches a majority in the EC.

There is nevertheless a strong moral argument that, in such a case, the House should vote for the candidate who received the most votes. That is not a law or a rule, but a moral argument. And the larger the gap between the candidates, the stronger the moral argument.

If there is only a small difference between the candidates in terms of total votes across the country, the moral argument is not very strong. But imagine a case in which the difference were large. It is theoretically possible that the result could be tied in the EC but one candidate won the popular vote by millions, or even tens of millions. There would be a very strong moral argument that the House should select the winner of the popular vote, as that person has greater support amongst Americans as a whole.

 

Sadly, "moral arguments" mean little in partisan politics.

 

Yeah.

But, it is a MOOT point.

There is ZERO realistic chance of 269-269. NONE.
Note the use if the word "realistic".

There is a better chance of Trump carrying CA and NY, than any sort of 269-269 scenario.

In other words, once again, NO CHANCE.

Trump is already toast in NH, so even his delusional miracle scenario is non-existent.

 

I'm afraid you are right.

Happily, we are unlikely to face this problem, as Hillary should win the EC outright.

 

Dearie me, time to clean up Andrew's dodgy- to-nonexistent grasp of probability:

269-269 is one possible outcome, and "improbable" on that basis. There are a vast number of possible outcomes, each one of which is improbable. This particular outcome interests us because it represents a tie, and is as "improbable" as any other.

In fact, the tie isn't as "improbable" as many other similar combinations, because it is actually realistically possible - I was playing with the map the other day and hit upon it exactly. There will be some combinations that are actually impossible, because no scenario yields them exactly.

Always happy to help.

 

There is not one single vote for the President or VP. There are 50 seperate votes. Tallying them all up might be interesting trivia but it is not a single vote and if there were just one big vote we all participated in the results could be entirely different.

Isn't the higher moral argument that the representatives vote how their constituents want them to vote?

 

I say IMPOSSIBLE. And, as always, I am CORRECT.

But, I will concede this:

The world ending tomorrow is POSSIBLE.

Aliens landing tomorrow is POSSIBLE.

Hillary will WIN, and there is no chance of 269-269. None.

We can talk Wednesday, when my Nostradamus-like prescience will once again be validated.

 

Half right - you say "impossible", that much is correct, you do indeed say this. The half wrong bit is that you are, as always on this matter, incorrect. The probability of trump winning is way beyond zero, which is the probability of the world ending tomorrow

Anyway, I know you know this. You've just taken a position and can't back out of it. Nobody can be that stupid.

Anyway, 269/269 is quite possible - we get it by giving Trump all the swingers, then split NH and Maine between them. Voilà, 269/269.

 

Nope you are incorrect once again.

 

No, there is not. Not only is the explicitly laid out in the Constitution in plain language, it has been done before.
There is no constitutional issue. The law is clear, the house picks in an electoral tie.

 

And the way many House GOPeons feel about Trump, there is a possibility.

 

I thought it was possible for the house to vote for someone else if they wanted to? There's a lot of GOP in the house that don't like Trump. I mean could they conspire to elect Paul Ryan or somebody else?