Election 2016 inevitable outcome

>Congress decides
>republican congress votes for Trump
>chimp out of all chimpouts ensues
>possible civil war regardless of who congress votes.

It would be pretty great

¡Yeb! going the slow and steady route

Are you fucking retarded?
270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/
Arizona hasn't been blue since 96.

Too bad for ME CD2 famm

As someone who teaches US Government and History, I'm kind of appalled by these responses to this scenario. I've been writing it off as a bunch of leaf posters who don't understand US politics, but now it seems to be pervasive. So let me explain.

The 12th Amendment states that the House of Representatives, in the event of an electoral tie, must choose the President from the three highest scoring candidates in terms of ELECTORAL (state) points.

So it wouldn't even be Trump/Clinton/Johnson because Johnson isn't getting any state in this election. The choice for the US House of Representatives would be between Trump and Clinton.

They can't pick Ryan, or Jeb, or anyone else because those people are not on the ballot. Nor can they choose from anyone who has not scored in the top three of the electoral points system.

Back to school fags

JEB SURGE, BABY

So you're saying if a faithless elector picks Jeb! Then he can be the third biggest vote getter?

>Implying the government follows their own laws.

Son, I'd recommend some reading comprehension courses before you come back to my history class. You will note that the Congress chooses between the top three electoral getters. If you don't get a state, you don't have an electoral vote. You are at 0

Jeb could get 15% of the popular vote, not win a single state, and he would not be in contention. "0" is not part of the top 3.

The math for the Electoral College is crazy. I don't remember the exact statistics, but someone in 2004 showed that a person could get around 39% of the popular vote and STILL win.

Our electoral college is fucked up. I've said for weeks that I expect Trump to WIN the popular vote but lose badly to Clinton based on the electoral college.

the 12th amendment states

" if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice."

>the house votes for the president but they are restricted to one vote per state, needing a 2/3 majority to win

>even by that trump will not have the 2/3 majority to win, the house will be undecided

"And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President"

so in that case joe biden sweeps the presidency from under the rug. he would probably win too if he was running

I misread the part about the electors. I'll take those classes myself

But it is still highly unlikely as most electors are bound by state law to choose the party candidate and I believe all electors are bound by either law or party rules to choose someone who is on the ballot.

You are technically correct, but my understanding has been (and I can go look it up) that each state gets one vote, not each representative. Then it would be fairly easy to say that you have to choose between Trump/Clinton and then once the House votes and votes and votes again for them to eventually reach a 2/3rds majority given how many states would fall for Trump

This is however based off of the OP's posting/map. I can't envision a map that results in an electoral tie where one person would not have a majority of those states. In his own scenario, Dems do not win a lot of states; its just the states they win are higher in electoral points.

I will go count it again though. Very fair point.

>If the Senate is unable to break a tie for the vice president, according to the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the speaker of the House serves as acting president.

I wonder if this means that the Senate (Republican, one vote each) would choose the Vice President. If the Senate swings, they would choose Kaine; if not Pence. And if the House stalls or cannot reach a 2/3rd majority (as you stated) then the VP (Kaine or Pence) would ascend to the Presidency? That's an interesting conundrum. We could also have a scenario, since it is the new Congress that chooses, where Trump/Kaine is a possibility.

The last thing to consider given all those things is that it is possible some of those blue states would swing red. Based off OP, there is a 55-58% majority based on how the states are counted. But some blue states, especially in the west, have more Republican seats based off of the 2012 election. And if we assume those seats remain, then the Republicans in those states, by vote, could turn them red for Trump getting him to a 2/3rd majority. This would be my assumption of what would occur. Still be interesting to see how the Senate would go.

yeah but the latinos