As this recently updated article discusses, while extremely unlikely, given the way this timeline is going it’s possible the electoral college ends in a tie. Nate Silver projects this as a .3% possibility.

Things to think about:

  1. Only about half of the states require their electors to vote for the person that won their state. Who are the electors? Generally no one you know.

  2. If there’s a tie, the House elects a president and the Senate elects a VP. Sub-consideration: it is the composition of the House and Senate after the November election that makes those determinations.

  3. This would all technically be decided on January 6th. And you remember how that went last time.

Regardless, it’s highly unlikely this will happen. Still, this would be utter and complete madness. There is literally a non-zero chance we have a Trump/Harris administration. 🤣

  • reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 days ago

    The dems really need to focus on getting rid of the electoral college. It has cost them too many elections where they have won the popular vote.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      20 days ago

      It can’t really be removed because it’s part of the Constitution. That would take an amendment and the bar for doing that is just too high right now.

      There is an alternate plan for states to just agree to cast their EC votes for whoever the national popular vote winner is, but that plan doesn’t kick in until enough states agree that total to 270.

      Currently sitting at 209:

      https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation

      • reddig33@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        20 days ago

        You never know until you try. I mean look at Republicans — they’ve been beating the anti-abortion drum since Phyllis Schlafly. And now abortion has been made illegal. Maybe the dems should at least start talking about it rather than just accepting defeat.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          20 days ago

          An amendment starts with 290 votes in the House, a body who can’t even get a simple 218 vote majority to decide who their own leader is. 290 is out of reach.

          If, by some miracle, they get that, then it needs 67 votes in the Senate, a body blocked by a 60 vote filibuster requirement.

          Assuming they somehow get both of those, it then goes to the states for ratification.

          You need 38 states, and since the losers of the popular vote have all been Republicans, that means getting all 25 Biden states from 2020 + 13 Trump states.

          Even then, the base of 25 states isn’t guaranteed as only 19 of them have Democratic state houses. So now you may need as many as 19 Trump states?

          So, yeah, an Amendment is not in the cards. Flip it around, let’s say the Republicans want an amendmement to ban abortion nationwide… not going to happen.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          20 days ago

          Man, if only! Congress is dysfunctional now with 435 members.

          If we appointed them per 30,000 population, we would have 11,000 congressmen. 😳

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            20 days ago

            I don’t think each comgresscritter should have a single vote in the house. 435 Congress people should be casting 335 million votes, one for each constituent they represent.

          • zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            20 days ago

            I don’t think its dysfunction has anything at all to do with having too many members. A significantly larger House may even end up being much less corrupt and more functional, at least after the growing pains.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        20 days ago

        The objective of NPVC is great, but it won’t work. If it ever comes online (which is incredibly unlikely), it will be immediately repealed the very first time it would actually have any effect, by every state that finds itself with electors voting against their own electorate. It probably wouldn’t even pass judicial review since it explicitly requires electors to ignore their own constituents in favor of the nation as a whole.

        It’s a pipe dream.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          20 days ago

          That and the first time it would reverse an election the participating states want.

          These states are voting for it because of Bush 2000 and Trump 2016, but the minute a Republican candidate wins the popular vote and loses the EC… REEEEEE!

    • mercano@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      20 days ago

      The Republicans haven’t won the popular vote for the Presidency since George W. Bush’s second term, and he was riding a high from his post-9/11 actions; he lost the popular election to Gore the first go round. The last time a Republican won the popular vote for their first term was George Bush Sr. in 1988.

    • riodoro1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      20 days ago

      But that would mean doing something that doesn’t immediately benefit the rich. No can do.

    • WoahWoah@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      20 days ago

      I didn’t even think about those two apportioned states. Yikes.

      Novel sounds interesting, I’ve never heard of it.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        20 days ago

        Basic premise is there’s an election and the winner dies before the Electoral College votes can be counted. So who wins?

        Is it the VP candidate, who got 0 electoral college votes, or the other candidate who got some but less than 270?

          • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            20 days ago

            Oh, man, it gets INCREDIBLY complicated.

            From a purely Electoral College perspective, you have to have 270 to win. So it boiled down to the electors in each state.

            But there aren’t really any laws REQUIRING electors to vote for who their state wanted and, in the case of death, that’s kind of out the window anyway.

            If nobody gets to 270, it goes to the House where it’s one vote per state.

      • Lost_My_Mind@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        20 days ago

        No no no…you have them compete on the mid-90s gv show American Gladiators.

        …look man, I just really like that show. I want to bring it back. And if I get to see trump fall 20 feet after being knocked off the ledge in Joust by a big jacked steroid monster named Ice, even better!