The current (116th) Congress adjourns on January 2, and the next Congress (the 117th) convenes on January 3. New Congress means a new Speaker of the House. Maybe even a Republican (either because more Republicans win or because left wing states can't certify their results and so the seats remain empty, the prior occupant's term having expired).
Put differently, it's not at all certain that Crazy Nancy will be Speaker of the House when Trump's first term ends at noon on January 20th.
It's also important to remember that the president is elected not by the people but by a majority of the electors chosen by the states. Your vote is to identify the electors (who then elect the president). The president is the person who gets the majority of the electoral votes cast: normally 270 (out of 538). That number need not be 270, however, and it won't be if a state fails to choose electors.
Put differently, California might not count in this year's presidential election.
California law won't necessarily stop the recounts.
Florida law in 2000 required counties to certify their results no later than November 14. Nevertheless, recounts continued until stopped by the Supreme Court on December 9.
The electoral college votes on December 14. Any state that hasn't finished counting and appointed its electors by that date won't be part of the election of the President or Vice President.
Actually if the electors arent finalized December 14th then the 12th amendment states that each states delegate in the legislature gets one vote. GOP controls a majority of the state delegations
That's wrong. The one-vote-per-state provision only applies if the House is selecting a President, and that only happens if no person wins a majority of the electors who voted.
No matter how fucked up things get in California and New York, there will be electors chosen in November in many states by decisive margins and without controversy, and those electors will vote for a President and Vice President on the date set by law (the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December; 3 U.S.C. § 7).
And this is why Virginia changing their selection of electoral votes to be based on national popular election results is total retard... Virginia requires certified vote counts from every state before it can know who their electoral votes will be.
I wouldn't be surprised, however, if it ends up being challenged and is unconstitutional because of the 10th amendment giving each state sovereignty. Virginia cannot be sovereign if it relies on the other states to know what it's votes should be.
Again, only if nobody receives a majority of the votes in the electoral college.
Election problems won't prevent all states from selecting electors. Some state elections will go just fine and will end with clear victories for Trump or Biden.
But some states - possibly all left wing states - will have serious problems and might never have a result. That will almost certainly help Trump.
Take California, for instance. It has 55 electoral votes. If it can't identify a winner about a month after the election then it loses its electors and the number required to win drops from 270 to 242. Trump will easily get that.
The Electoral votes are opened in a Joint Session of Congress, presided over by the President of the Senate i.e. The Vice President of the United States. There may be objections to the electors, but it the objection must come from a member of the House and also a Senator.
Members of Congress can object to any state's vote count, provided objection is presented in writing and is signed by at least one member of each house of Congress. An objection supported by at least one senator and one representative will be followed by the suspension of the joint session and by separate debates and votes in each House of Congress; after both Houses deliberate on the objection, the joint session is resumed.
A state's certificate of vote can be rejected only if both Houses of Congress vote to accept the objection, meaning the votes from the State in question are not counted. Individual votes can also be rejected, and are also not counted.
I was doing some reading on this, and I think you might be in error - RE: the majority determination being based on the number of votes cast versus the number of Electors by statute.
(And wouldn't you know it, I can't find the article to reference)
But I read that 2 members of the Electoral College died and could not be replaced in time, but they were still counted among the Electors, even though they did not cast votes.
Maybe you've found something more definitive in your research.
Those two electors were counted because they were appointed.
The 12th Amendment states:
The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed
Appointment of the electors is done by each state "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct." (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2).
Once appointed, a state's electors count towards the total number of electors whether or not they vote. However, a state's failure to appoint electors (because there's no result or because of legal challenges) reduces the whole number of electors appointed and, therefore, the number necessary to win the election.
The president is the person who gets themajority of the electoral votes cast normally 270 (out of 538). That number need not be 270, however, and it won't be if a state fails to choose electors.
The total number cast does not play into what constitutes a majority.
Wrong, and reposting this won't make it right.
The current (116th) Congress adjourns on January 2, and the next Congress (the 117th) convenes on January 3. New Congress means a new Speaker of the House. Maybe even a Republican (either because more Republicans win or because left wing states can't certify their results and so the seats remain empty, the prior occupant's term having expired).
Put differently, it's not at all certain that Crazy Nancy will be Speaker of the House when Trump's first term ends at noon on January 20th.
It's also important to remember that the president is elected not by the people but by a majority of the electors chosen by the states. Your vote is to identify the electors (who then elect the president). The president is the person who gets the majority of the electoral votes cast: normally 270 (out of 538). That number need not be 270, however, and it won't be if a state fails to choose electors.
Put differently, California might not count in this year's presidential election.
By law, California must certify the vote 35 days after an election.
California law won't necessarily stop the recounts.
Florida law in 2000 required counties to certify their results no later than November 14. Nevertheless, recounts continued until stopped by the Supreme Court on December 9.
The electoral college votes on December 14. Any state that hasn't finished counting and appointed its electors by that date won't be part of the election of the President or Vice President.
Actually if the electors arent finalized December 14th then the 12th amendment states that each states delegate in the legislature gets one vote. GOP controls a majority of the state delegations
That's wrong. The one-vote-per-state provision only applies if the House is selecting a President, and that only happens if no person wins a majority of the electors who voted.
No matter how fucked up things get in California and New York, there will be electors chosen in November in many states by decisive margins and without controversy, and those electors will vote for a President and Vice President on the date set by law (the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December; 3 U.S.C. § 7).
And this is why Virginia changing their selection of electoral votes to be based on national popular election results is total retard... Virginia requires certified vote counts from every state before it can know who their electoral votes will be.
I wouldn't be surprised, however, if it ends up being challenged and is unconstitutional because of the 10th amendment giving each state sovereignty. Virginia cannot be sovereign if it relies on the other states to know what it's votes should be.
nterim President Cocain Mitch?
One shudders at the thought
nija edit: shit wrong house of congress - the correct answer was "Who is Interim President Kevin McCarthy?"
McCarthyism 2.0 - A Communists Lement?
New congress does come in on Jan 3rd.
If we can't capture the house, and the dems keep it, then they can try their little coup attempt.
Again, only if nobody receives a majority of the votes in the electoral college.
Election problems won't prevent all states from selecting electors. Some state elections will go just fine and will end with clear victories for Trump or Biden.
But some states - possibly all left wing states - will have serious problems and might never have a result. That will almost certainly help Trump.
Take California, for instance. It has 55 electoral votes. If it can't identify a winner about a month after the election then it loses its electors and the number required to win drops from 270 to 242. Trump will easily get that.
Remember, the states provide the votes.
However, it’s upto the house to receive and accept the votes.
It’s possible the house refuses to accept the delegation and votes.
The Electoral votes are opened in a Joint Session of Congress, presided over by the President of the Senate i.e. The Vice President of the United States. There may be objections to the electors, but it the objection must come from a member of the House and also a Senator.
A state's certificate of vote can be rejected only if both Houses of Congress vote to accept the objection, meaning the votes from the State in question are not counted. Individual votes can also be rejected, and are also not counted.
I was doing some reading on this, and I think you might be in error - RE: the majority determination being based on the number of votes cast versus the number of Electors by statute.
(And wouldn't you know it, I can't find the article to reference)
But I read that 2 members of the Electoral College died and could not be replaced in time, but they were still counted among the Electors, even though they did not cast votes.
Maybe you've found something more definitive in your research.
Those two electors were counted because they were appointed.
The 12th Amendment states:
Appointment of the electors is done by each state "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct." (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2).
Once appointed, a state's electors count towards the total number of electors whether or not they vote. However, a state's failure to appoint electors (because there's no result or because of legal challenges) reduces the whole number of electors appointed and, therefore, the number necessary to win the election.
Ah ok, i was misinterpreting your phrasing:
The total number cast does not play into what constitutes a majority.