Comments on: The 269-269 Electoral Tie Scenario http://www.chrisweigant.com/2008/06/11/the-269-269-electoral-tie-scenario/ Reality-based political commentary Wed, 06 May 2026 16:52:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Chris Weigant http://www.chrisweigant.com/2008/06/11/the-269-269-electoral-tie-scenario/#comment-2609 Chris Weigant Thu, 12 Jun 2008 03:42:57 +0000 http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2008/06/11/the-269-269-electoral-tie-scenario/#comment-2609 tjtaitano - See, I just knew if I cut corners on my research someone was going to call me out on it. Sigh. OK, I have delved into the Constitution and am now even more confused. You may be right, tjtaitano, and then again I may be right. I didn't even read my previous column from <a href="http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2007/07/11/the-wildest-presidential-election-since-1824/" rel="nofollow">last July</a>, when I first brought this prospect up (I saw it as much more likely that Bloomberg would jump in the race, and no candidate would have 270 in the EC, which means the same thing... it goes to the House). It has happened twice before, in 1824 and in 1800. It may have happened since then, but those are the two I mentioned before. But, obviously, the rules are going to be different if it happens again, as DC didn't even count in the EC back then. There are three relevant Amendments: XII, XX, and XXIII. They somewhat contradict each other, or at the very least, leave things vague. <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxii.html" rel="nofollow">Amendment XII</a> lays out the basic EC rules. In this case (something I hadn't noticed before) the Senate chooses the VP while the House chooses the Pres. Something I overlooked for this article -- you need a <em>majority</em> in the House to win. So this would mean 26 seats, whether it was 50 or 51. If nobody gets 26 votes, they just keep voting over and over again until someone wins (just like the pope). <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxx.html" rel="nofollow">Amendment XX</a> changes the rules a bit. If, by Inaugural Day the House still hasn't made up its mind, then the VP chosen by the Senate becomes Acting President until the House figures it out. If the Senate is also deadlocked, the House can pick <em>whomever it feels like</em> as Acting President. And you thought Bush v. Gore was a wild ride! <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxxiii.html" rel="nofollow">Amendment XXIII</a> is the vague one (it's the one you referred to, which gives DC electoral votes). It all hinges on how the language is interpreted. It states that the DC electors "shall be in addition to those appointed by the states, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a state; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment." Like I said, since it's never happened since XXIII was ratified (1961), there is just no precedent. It depends on the meaning of "for the purposes of the election" and "perform such duties." But, having said that, you're probably right and the House would probably deny them a vote (much to the annoyance of DC residents, who are already pretty annoyed at their status... as evidenced by those "Taxation without representation" license plates they sport). But it could go either way, depending on the mood of the House. But you are right, I should have dug a little deeper. Mea culpa. Thanks for keeping me honest! -CW tjtaitano -

See, I just knew if I cut corners on my research someone was going to call me out on it. Sigh.

OK, I have delved into the Constitution and am now even more confused. You may be right, tjtaitano, and then again I may be right.

I didn't even read my previous column from last July, when I first brought this prospect up (I saw it as much more likely that Bloomberg would jump in the race, and no candidate would have 270 in the EC, which means the same thing... it goes to the House).

It has happened twice before, in 1824 and in 1800. It may have happened since then, but those are the two I mentioned before. But, obviously, the rules are going to be different if it happens again, as DC didn't even count in the EC back then.

There are three relevant Amendments: XII, XX, and XXIII. They somewhat contradict each other, or at the very least, leave things vague.

Amendment XII lays out the basic EC rules. In this case (something I hadn't noticed before) the Senate chooses the VP while the House chooses the Pres. Something I overlooked for this article -- you need a majority in the House to win. So this would mean 26 seats, whether it was 50 or 51. If nobody gets 26 votes, they just keep voting over and over again until someone wins (just like the pope).

Amendment XX changes the rules a bit. If, by Inaugural Day the House still hasn't made up its mind, then the VP chosen by the Senate becomes Acting President until the House figures it out. If the Senate is also deadlocked, the House can pick whomever it feels like as Acting President. And you thought Bush v. Gore was a wild ride!

Amendment XXIII is the vague one (it's the one you referred to, which gives DC electoral votes). It all hinges on how the language is interpreted. It states that the DC electors "shall be in addition to those appointed by the states, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a state; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment." Like I said, since it's never happened since XXIII was ratified (1961), there is just no precedent. It depends on the meaning of "for the purposes of the election" and "perform such duties." But, having said that, you're probably right and the House would probably deny them a vote (much to the annoyance of DC residents, who are already pretty annoyed at their status... as evidenced by those "Taxation without representation" license plates they sport). But it could go either way, depending on the mood of the House.

But you are right, I should have dug a little deeper. Mea culpa. Thanks for keeping me honest!

-CW

]]> By: tjtaitano http://www.chrisweigant.com/2008/06/11/the-269-269-electoral-tie-scenario/#comment-2608 tjtaitano Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:18:05 +0000 http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2008/06/11/the-269-269-electoral-tie-scenario/#comment-2608 Your analysis was interesting but there is one error. The District of Columbia does not have a Member of the House of Representatives. It has a non-voting Delegate to the House of Representatives -Eleanor Holmes Norton. She has the title of Congresswoman and serves on Standing Committees but has no vote on the House floor. The only reason why D.C. has seats in the electoral college is because of a constitutional amendment that granted D.C. the seats as if it had 2 Senators and 1 Representative in the House. Bottom line: Norton would not be casting any votes on the House floor for President under your scenario. Your analysis was interesting but there is one error. The District of Columbia does not have a Member of the House of Representatives. It has a non-voting Delegate to the House of Representatives -Eleanor Holmes Norton. She has the title of Congresswoman and serves on Standing Committees but has no vote on the House floor. The only reason why D.C. has seats in the electoral college is because of a constitutional amendment that granted D.C. the seats as if it had 2 Senators and 1 Representative in the House. Bottom line: Norton would not be casting any votes on the House floor for President under your scenario.

]]>