I'm probably wrong on this, and hopefully a more knowledgeable pede will correct me, but I thought it went like this;
Jan 6 - In the absence of a majority (270) the House votes to select the president, the Senate votes to select the Vice President.
If there are issues with conflicting electoral votes, the two houses may vote which to accept or reject. If they can't agree, the electors certified by the Governor of the disputed state would be counted.
Again, probably wrong, but hopefully someone chimes in.
Edit - Okay, I feel it's not fair to have others do the hard lifting while I sit here. It turns out it's a state-by-state vote in the House. So not number of sitting congresswomen (this is a thing now, right Emanuel Cleaver?). It's one vote per state. So while Congress is Democrat majority by total seats, the Republicans have this by State vote (California with 55 electoral votes now gets just as much of a say as Montana with 3).
I'm probably wrong on this, and hopefully a more knowledgeable pede will correct me, but I thought it went like this;
Jan 6 - In the absence of a majority (270) the House votes to select the president, the Senate votes to select the Vice President.
If there are issues with conflicting electoral votes, the two houses may vote which to accept or reject. If they can't agree, the electors certified by the Governor of the disputed state would be counted.
Again, probably wrong, but hopefully someone chimes in.
Edit - Okay, I feel it's not fair to have others do the hard lifting while I sit here. It turns out it's a state-by-state vote in the House. So not number of sitting congresswomen (this is a thing now, right Emanuel Cleaver?). It's one vote per state. So while Congress is Democrat majority by total seats, the Republicans have this by State vote (California with 55 electoral votes now gets just as much of a say as Montana with 3).
I think I get this now.