There is nothing in the constitution that says otherwise.
And this should make us pause... the Constitution and its framers never foresaw the office of the presidency being so important and its election being such a contentious thing that it would be controversial for the Vice President of the preceding administration to have the final say. The Constitution does not foresee a popular vote at all. The election of the president was to be a very un-democratic process, strongly gatekept by the ruling elites: the state legislatures appoint electors (without reference to a popular vote), Congress can reject any or all of them, the VP can reject any or all of them, and ultimately it can go directly to the States via the House. What's essentially happening when it goes to the House is we're reverting temporarily to the logic of the Continental Congress, which predates the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, even the Declaration of Independence. Under the Constitution, small states ceded power to large states, but when there is a contention in the election of president (and vice president), no holds are barred as it were, and every state is restored its pre-Constitution sovereign authority of one State one vote.
People balk at the VP's power here, but it's because the presidency was intended to be an office elected by the elites, so all of this controversy would be in-house and behind closed doors. Pence can force a contingent election. Every election from now on should be contested if the VP is a Republican, since, presumably, there will always be more red states than blue states. And this basically means no Democrats could ever win the presidency again, assuming Pence does it. Say goodbye to democracy, but it was never intended in the first place so whatever. It is a Union of States, not individuals, so one state one vote is the most fair way to select the president; more fair than the electoral college, and certainly more fair than a popular vote.
And this should make us pause... the Constitution and its framers never foresaw the office of the presidency being so important and its election being such a contentious thing that it would be controversial for the Vice President of the preceding administration to have the final say. The Constitution does not foresee a popular vote at all. The election of the president was to be a very un-democratic process, strongly gatekept by the ruling elites: the state legislatures appoint electors (without reference to a popular vote), Congress can reject any or all of them, the VP can reject any or all of them, and ultimately it can go directly to the States via the House. What's essentially happening when it goes to the House is we're reverting temporarily to the logic of the Continental Congress, which predates the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, even the Declaration of Independence. Under the Constitution, small states ceded power to large states, but when there is a contention in the election of president (and vice president), no holds are barred as it were, and every state is restored its pre-Constitution sovereign authority of one State one vote.
People balk at the VP's power here, but it's because the presidency was intended to be an office elected by the elites, so all of this controversy would be in-house and behind closed doors. Pence can force a contingent election. Every election from now on should be contested if the VP is a Republican, since, presumably, there will always be more red states than blue states. And this basically means no Democrats could ever win the presidency again, assuming Pence does it. Say goodbye to democracy, but it was never intended in the first place so whatever. It is a Union of States, not individuals, so one state one vote is the most fair way to select the president; more fair than the electoral college, and certainly more fair than a popular vote.
Democracy has already been destroyed. Pence should do whatever he can...and we can just hold new and honest elections.