If we can’t validate the election results for 20 years. Does trump remain?

[Nostra]

It will depend on how the rest of the election goes.

I believe the President Pro Tempore would take the office, and that would currently be Grassley. BUT, if the Congressional elections count and go Democrat, then the President Pro Tempore would be a Democrat, I reckon.

In either case, the President would be neither Trump nor Biden.

Hmm....

I think the House of representatives picks our President, if no winner.... but here's the kicker, I think there is only 1 vote per state.... So I do not know how that works? Do state representatives get together and vote on who gets chosen for their state, then submit that person as the vote from their state?

Incorrect; The electoral College is the only AUTHORIZED body to do this under the US Constitution. There are date certian time lines under Title 1 US Code that codify these. They miss the deadline they lose their electors. Enjoy your mail in ballot mess because it is going to be an unmitigated disaster.

If the electoral college does not meet the timeline, then Congress chooses, is my understanding.

And this is why everyone thought what the SC did in Bush v Gore was unconstitutional. The SC should have let the constitutional process, work through.

And this is why everyone thought what the SC did in Bush v Gore was unconstitutional.

The only people who thought that were leftist sore losers. What Gore wanted was unconstitutional.............recounts in only 4 liberal counties. A statewide recount was required, and the deadline was in place before the SC ruled. Florida couldn't recount the whole state in time.

A subsequent recount by a consortium of media outlets proved Bush had more votes, with their recount adding to his margin.

You lost, time to accept the results of the 2000 and 2016 elections.

 

[Care4all]

It will depend on how the rest of the election goes.

I believe the President Pro Tempore would take the office, and that would currently be Grassley. BUT, if the Congressional elections count and go Democrat, then the President Pro Tempore would be a Democrat, I reckon.

In either case, the President would be neither Trump nor Biden.

Hmm....

I think the House of representatives picks our President, if no winner.... but here's the kicker, I think there is only 1 vote per state.... So I do not know how that works? Do state representatives get together and vote on who gets chosen for their state, then submit that person as the vote from their state?

Incorrect; The electoral College is the only AUTHORIZED body to do this under the US Constitution. There are date certian time lines under Title 1 US Code that codify these. They miss the deadline they lose their electors. Enjoy your mail in ballot mess because it is going to be an unmitigated disaster.

If the electoral college does not meet the timeline, then Congress chooses, is my understanding.

And this is why everyone thought what the SC did in Bush v Gore was unconstitutional. The SC should have let the constitutional process, work through.

"If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the president from the three presidential candidates who received the most electoral votes," the National Archives explains. "Each state delegation has one vote."
What happens if no candidate wins an Electoral College ...
New link

What happens if no candidate wins an Electoral College majority?"If%20no%20candidate%20receives%20a%20majority%20of%20electoral,Archives%20explains.%20"Each%20state%20delegation%20has%20one%20vote."

 

[Cecilie1200]

The intervention in 2000 was, how should we put it...less than constructive.

The intervention in 2000 was actually for a very specific matter involving a possible violation of law. It was NOT to decide the election, whatever conclusion people jumped to. While the US Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a lower court's - in that case, the Florida Supreme Court - decision on a point of law, even election law, they have no actual jurisdiction over elections themselves, or over who holds office.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The President's term ends Jan. 20.

In the event that the election is undecided on that date the previous administration remains until it is.

And where is that written into law? Seems to me like the Constitution directly says that ISN'T what happens.

I have added to my post... It is a very unlikely event but the current administration would continue until the issue is resolved and a transition of power scheduled by SCOTUS.

Still waiting on your citation of law. Pretty sure I didn't ask you to parrot your empty assertion.

And I know for a fact that SCOTUS has nothing to do with it.

SCOTUS is the arbitrator of all things in a federal election and most certainly that of the presidential election. I doubt however that it will ever come to that as date certain limitations on the Electoral College counts are codified into law. If a state misses that deadline their EC delegates can do nothing and the total of EC delegates is reduced by that number. The winner will be the one who has 50+ % of those remaining electors.

SCOTUS is the arbiter of all things in a federal election according to what law?

You keep making all these assertions of how things are without any evidence. When you're asked for evidence, you give me another unsubstantiated assertion instead.

It's almost as if you're a leftist who thinks reality is created by your ability to wish really loudly.

You really need to read the law Title 1 US Code

You really need to produce a citation - ie. a quote of the relevant portion - or at least name a specific chapter and section. Just saying, "Here's the name of the law, I'm sure it's in there, now go read the whole thing and prove me right!" is the same as saying, "I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about, but I'm too dishonest and cowardly to admit it!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

The 2016 Presidential Election/Provisions of the Constitution and United States Code10

UNITED STATES CODE

The following provisions of law governing Presidential Elections are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended):

Title 3 —The President Chapter

1Presidential Elections and Vacancies Section

1. Time of appointing electors.
2. Failure to make choice on prescribed day.
3. Number of electors.
4. Vacancies in electoral college.
5. Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors.
6. Credentials of electors; transmission to Archivist of the United States and to Congress; public inspection.
7. Meeting and vote of electors.
8. Manner of voting.
9. Certificates of votes for President and Vice President.
10. Sealing and endorsing certificates.
11. Disposition of certificates.
12. Failure of certificates of electors to reach President of the Senate or Archivist of the United States; demand on State for certificate.
13. Same; demand on district judge for certificate
14. Forfeiture for messenger’s neglect of duty.
15. Counting electoral votes in Congress.
16. Same; seats for officers and Members of two Houses in joint meeting.
17. Same; limit of debate in each House.
18. Same; parliamentary procedure at joint meeting.
19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act.
20. Resignation or refusal of office.
21. Definitions.

Well, thank you for finally getting in the general ballpark of substantiating your claims. Want to go whole hog and actually show us where anything you've asserted shows up in the actual words?

 

[Cecilie1200]

It will depend on how the rest of the election goes.

I believe the President Pro Tempore would take the office, and that would currently be Grassley. BUT, if the Congressional elections count and go Democrat, then the President Pro Tempore would be a Democrat, I reckon.

In either case, the President would be neither Trump nor Biden.

Hmm....

I think the House of representatives picks our President, if no winner.... but here's the kicker, I think there is only 1 vote per state.... So I do not know how that works? Do state representatives get together and vote on who gets chosen for their state, then submit that person as the vote from their state?

Incorrect; The electoral College is the only AUTHORIZED body to do this under the US Constitution. There are date certian time lines under Title 1 US Code that codify these. They miss the deadline they lose their electors. Enjoy your mail in ballot mess because it is going to be an unmitigated disaster.

Yep, if a state can't get their vote count in, they get thrown out.

That certainly seems to be what history shows us.

In response to Care's post, the House picks the President if there is no clear majority winner of electoral votes. In that case, there is indeed only one vote per state. And yes, the delegation from each state gets together and decides among them which candidate their state is going to go for.

If we went to an all-mail voting system, and it resulted as it seems it would in votes simply not being able to be counted fast enough, it would basically have the effect of disenfranchising large numbers of people who did vote, and the President being chosen by a very small sliver of the population. And in fact, it seems to me that states with smaller, more rural populations - which also tend to be more conservative-leaning - would have an easier time of counting their votes in time to certify them than large, populous urban areas would.

I do think we've pretty much put paid to any serious notion that the election could be delayed, because the various laws in play simply don't allow for it. And it seems like the Presidential line of succession would only come into play if all 50 states failed to certify any vote count at all. Of course, in that case I would think the state legislatures would simply choose the slate of electors for their state.

For the record, I believe 30 states have Republican-led legislatures, as opposed to 18 Democrat and 2 split. So leftists might want to rethink any plan that puts us on that sort of course.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It will depend on how the rest of the election goes.

I believe the President Pro Tempore would take the office, and that would currently be Grassley. BUT, if the Congressional elections count and go Democrat, then the President Pro Tempore would be a Democrat, I reckon.

In either case, the President would be neither Trump nor Biden.

Hmm....

I think the House of representatives picks our President, if no winner.... but here's the kicker, I think there is only 1 vote per state.... So I do not know how that works? Do state representatives get together and vote on who gets chosen for their state, then submit that person as the vote from their state?

Incorrect; The electoral College is the only AUTHORIZED body to do this under the US Constitution. There are date certian time lines under Title 1 US Code that codify these. They miss the deadline they lose their electors. Enjoy your mail in ballot mess because it is going to be an unmitigated disaster.

If the electoral college does not meet the timeline, then Congress chooses, is my understanding.

And this is why everyone thought what the SC did in Bush v Gore was unconstitutional. The SC should have let the constitutional process, work through.

What's the likelihood that all fifty states would certify no vote count at all, AND that all fifty of those state legislatures would decline to choose the slate of electors themselves? The House of Representatives decides in the case of no clear majority winner.

And everyone thought what the Supreme Court did in 2000 was "Unconstitutional" primarily because the "everyone" in question consisted of a bunch of morons who hadn't a clue what was actually happening. As I explained at the time, the Florida Supreme Court intervened where it had no business and contradicted the written law of the state. All the US Supreme Court did was hear an appeal of the Florida court's decision and rule - quite correctly - that the lower court had violated the law.

It was the Florida Supreme Court that should have let the process as written in the law of its own state work through.

 

[Billy_Bob]

It will depend on how the rest of the election goes.

I believe the President Pro Tempore would take the office, and that would currently be Grassley. BUT, if the Congressional elections count and go Democrat, then the President Pro Tempore would be a Democrat, I reckon.

In either case, the President would be neither Trump nor Biden.

Hmm....

I think the House of representatives picks our President, if no winner.... but here's the kicker, I think there is only 1 vote per state.... So I do not know how that works? Do state representatives get together and vote on who gets chosen for their state, then submit that person as the vote from their state?

Incorrect; The electoral College is the only AUTHORIZED body to do this under the US Constitution. There are date certian time lines under Title 1 US Code that codify these. They miss the deadline they lose their electors. Enjoy your mail in ballot mess because it is going to be an unmitigated disaster.

If the electoral college does not meet the timeline, then Congress chooses, is my understanding.

And this is why everyone thought what the SC did in Bush v Gore was unconstitutional. The SC should have let the constitutional process, work through.

SCOTUS has jurisditicton over the courts certifying the votes for the EC when the states fail to meet deadlines. Congress has no place in the selection of the POTUS other than to be a judge of the EC vote count.

 

[Mike473]

We are in unique situation here. I don't believe some states even stand a chance of meeting the deadlines this time around.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It will depend on how the rest of the election goes.

I believe the President Pro Tempore would take the office, and that would currently be Grassley. BUT, if the Congressional elections count and go Democrat, then the President Pro Tempore would be a Democrat, I reckon.

In either case, the President would be neither Trump nor Biden.

Hmm....

I think the House of representatives picks our President, if no winner.... but here's the kicker, I think there is only 1 vote per state.... So I do not know how that works? Do state representatives get together and vote on who gets chosen for their state, then submit that person as the vote from their state?

Incorrect; The electoral College is the only AUTHORIZED body to do this under the US Constitution. There are date certian time lines under Title 1 US Code that codify these. They miss the deadline they lose their electors. Enjoy your mail in ballot mess because it is going to be an unmitigated disaster.

If the electoral college does not meet the timeline, then Congress chooses, is my understanding.

And this is why everyone thought what the SC did in Bush v Gore was unconstitutional. The SC should have let the constitutional process, work through.

SCOTUS has jurisditicton over the courts certifiying the votes for the EC. Congress has no place in the selection of the POTUS other than to be a judge of the EC vote count.

More blank assertions of "I have decided this is how it works, so it is!" No evidence.

Hate to break it to you, but Care is actually closer to what the law says than you are . . . unless you can cite the actual words of a law that contradicts me.

 

[Care4all]

Does the Constitution allow for a delayed presidential election? | Constitution Center

As America battles the COVID-19 virus, speculation has started that a prolonged public health crisis could delay or even postpone this year’s presidential election. So how would the Constitution deal with such an unusual situation?

www.constitutioncenter.org

Three opinions from the Congressional Research Service explain scenarios about the possible delays in the presidential election process. One report, released last month, indicates a state under its own laws could postpone the general election date that results in the selection of electors; in the election this year that date is Tuesday, November 3, 2020. At least 45 states have statutes that deal with election day emergencies, the CRS says.

What remains clear is that only the states and Congress have the power to delay that part of the election process. “Unlike the practice of some states that allow the Governor to postpone an election during emergencies, neither the Constitution nor Congress provides any similar power to the President or other federal officials to change this date outside of Congress’s regular legislative process,” the report says.

Congress also would have the power, by changing the appropriate statutes, to change the general election date and as well the dates electoral votes are received in Washington and counted in Congress. Such changes would require the consent of the House and the Senate and would be extraordinary since “the presidential election date has never been changed in response to an emergency,” the CRS concluded.

In 2004, the CRS also looked at the various scenarios of a delayed presidential election in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It determined Congress could by statute delegate some of its electoral process powers to the Executive Branch in emergency situations. “While the Executive Branch has significant delegated authority regarding some aspects of election law, this authority does not currently extend to setting or changing the times of elections,” the CRS said.

But Congress does not have the power to delay elections without a deadline, the CRS reasoned. “Congress could not postpone elections indefinitely, as the Constitution requires that Members of the House of Representatives shall be chosen ‘every second year’ (under Article I, Section 2) and Senators shall be chosen for terms of ‘six years’ (under the 17th Amendment).

A separate CRS study from October 2004 evaluated scenarios of election delays for the Presidency and Congress due to catastrophic events such as “peril to life and extensive damage to infrastructure.” While a delay could be needed, the requirement to elect a president and vice president still existed: “Congress would tend to accept the delay, so long as the rescheduled elections were held before the date in December when the Electoral College casts its ballots, and the beginning of the next Congress, respectively.”

And, in conjunction with the presidential election, a new Congress also needs to be in place on January 3 following the general election under the 20th Amendment. That new Congress would select a president and a vice president if the Electoral College voters do not agree on a majority winner for each office.

Absent a clear winner of the presidential election on January 20, the Speaker of the House would serve as Acting President under the current succession law. The 20th Amendment requires that the duly elected president and vice president assume their positions at some point. “Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

Scott Bomboy is the editor in chief of the National Constitution Center.

 

[Care4all]

It will depend on how the rest of the election goes.

I believe the President Pro Tempore would take the office, and that would currently be Grassley. BUT, if the Congressional elections count and go Democrat, then the President Pro Tempore would be a Democrat, I reckon.

In either case, the President would be neither Trump nor Biden.

Hmm....

I think the House of representatives picks our President, if no winner.... but here's the kicker, I think there is only 1 vote per state.... So I do not know how that works? Do state representatives get together and vote on who gets chosen for their state, then submit that person as the vote from their state?

Incorrect; The electoral College is the only AUTHORIZED body to do this under the US Constitution. There are date certian time lines under Title 1 US Code that codify these. They miss the deadline they lose their electors. Enjoy your mail in ballot mess because it is going to be an unmitigated disaster.

If the electoral college does not meet the timeline, then Congress chooses, is my understanding.

And this is why everyone thought what the SC did in Bush v Gore was unconstitutional. The SC should have let the constitutional process, work through.

What's the likelihood that all fifty states would certify no vote count at all, AND that all fifty of those state legislatures would decline to choose the slate of electors themselves? The House of Representatives decides in the case of no clear majority winner.

And everyone thought what the Supreme Court did in 2000 was "Unconstitutional" primarily because the "everyone" in question consisted of a bunch of morons who hadn't a clue what was actually happening. As I explained at the time, the Florida Supreme Court intervened where it had no business and contradicted the written law of the state. All the US Supreme Court did was hear an appeal of the Florida court's decision and rule - quite correctly - that the lower court had violated the law.

It was the Florida Supreme Court that should have let the process as written in the law of its own state work through.

Not likely that all states would not have a count.... but even a couple of big states not having electors by the electoral college voting day, could cause there to not have 1 candidate who has reached the required 270 EC votes to win.

If states have written in to their election laws a measure for the legislature to just pick them, if out of time, then it seems they could simply select a slate to send.... And depending on the State who has to do that, it could hurt the Dems!!!

But, I'm not certain what states may have that as a provision in their election laws?

Florida in 2000 comes to mind.... You would think if they had this provision of the legislature picking the slate of electors, the republicans for Bush should not have needed to sue, to stop the count, so electors could be decided in time????

 

[Nostra]

It will depend on how the rest of the election goes.

I believe the President Pro Tempore would take the office, and that would currently be Grassley. BUT, if the Congressional elections count and go Democrat, then the President Pro Tempore would be a Democrat, I reckon.

In either case, the President would be neither Trump nor Biden.

Hmm....

I think the House of representatives picks our President, if no winner.... but here's the kicker, I think there is only 1 vote per state.... So I do not know how that works? Do state representatives get together and vote on who gets chosen for their state, then submit that person as the vote from their state?

Incorrect; The electoral College is the only AUTHORIZED body to do this under the US Constitution. There are date certian time lines under Title 1 US Code that codify these. They miss the deadline they lose their electors. Enjoy your mail in ballot mess because it is going to be an unmitigated disaster.

If the electoral college does not meet the timeline, then Congress chooses, is my understanding.

And this is why everyone thought what the SC did in Bush v Gore was unconstitutional. The SC should have let the constitutional process, work through.

What's the likelihood that all fifty states would certify no vote count at all, AND that all fifty of those state legislatures would decline to choose the slate of electors themselves? The House of Representatives decides in the case of no clear majority winner.

And everyone thought what the Supreme Court did in 2000 was "Unconstitutional" primarily because the "everyone" in question consisted of a bunch of morons who hadn't a clue what was actually happening. As I explained at the time, the Florida Supreme Court intervened where it had no business and contradicted the written law of the state. All the US Supreme Court did was hear an appeal of the Florida court's decision and rule - quite correctly - that the lower court had violated the law.

It was the Florida Supreme Court that should have let the process as written in the law of its own state work through.

Not likely that all states would not have a count.... but even a couple of big states not having electors by the electoral college voting day, could cause there to not have 1 candidate who has reached the required 270 EC votes to win.

If states have written in to their election laws a measure for the legislature to just pick them, if out of time, then it seems they could simply select a slate to send.... And depending on the State who has to do that, it could hurt the Dems!!!

But, I'm not certain what states may have that as a provision in their election laws?

Florida in 2000 comes to mind.... You would think if they had this provision of the legislature picking the slate of electors, the republicans for Bush should not have needed to sue, to stop the count, so electors could be decided in time????

The only states pushing for this last minute change to massive mail in ballots are Dimwinger states, so who do you think will get hurt when they can't count the votes like in the NY primary?

 

[Cecilie1200]

It will depend on how the rest of the election goes.

I believe the President Pro Tempore would take the office, and that would currently be Grassley. BUT, if the Congressional elections count and go Democrat, then the President Pro Tempore would be a Democrat, I reckon.

In either case, the President would be neither Trump nor Biden.

Hmm....

I think the House of representatives picks our President, if no winner.... but here's the kicker, I think there is only 1 vote per state.... So I do not know how that works? Do state representatives get together and vote on who gets chosen for their state, then submit that person as the vote from their state?

Incorrect; The electoral College is the only AUTHORIZED body to do this under the US Constitution. There are date certian time lines under Title 1 US Code that codify these. They miss the deadline they lose their electors. Enjoy your mail in ballot mess because it is going to be an unmitigated disaster.

If the electoral college does not meet the timeline, then Congress chooses, is my understanding.

And this is why everyone thought what the SC did in Bush v Gore was unconstitutional. The SC should have let the constitutional process, work through.

What's the likelihood that all fifty states would certify no vote count at all, AND that all fifty of those state legislatures would decline to choose the slate of electors themselves? The House of Representatives decides in the case of no clear majority winner.

And everyone thought what the Supreme Court did in 2000 was "Unconstitutional" primarily because the "everyone" in question consisted of a bunch of morons who hadn't a clue what was actually happening. As I explained at the time, the Florida Supreme Court intervened where it had no business and contradicted the written law of the state. All the US Supreme Court did was hear an appeal of the Florida court's decision and rule - quite correctly - that the lower court had violated the law.

It was the Florida Supreme Court that should have let the process as written in the law of its own state work through.

Not likely that all states would not have a count.... but even a couple of big states not having electors by the electoral college voting day, could cause there to not have 1 candidate who has reached the required 270 EC votes to win.

If states have written in to their election laws a measure for the legislature to just pick them, if out of time, then it seems they could simply select a slate to send.... And depending on the State who has to do that, it could hurt the Dems!!!

But, I'm not certain what states may have that as a provision in their election laws?

Florida in 2000 comes to mind.... You would think if they had this provision of the legislature picking the slate of electors, the republicans for Bush should not have needed to sue, to stop the count, so electors could be decided in time????

270 is only the required number to win if all electors from all states are present and accounted for. The actual wording of the law is "majority of appointed electors". If a state doesn't certify their vote and appoint their slate of electors, and is thus ignored by the official Congressional tally of the electoral votes, then the actual number of the majority goes down.

And the law in question regarding state legislatures appointing the slate of electors would actually be the US Constitution, Article 2. The manner in which a state's electors are chosen is up to the legislature of that state. Until the 1800s, electors were simply chosen by the state legislature. Gradually, states began to go with a popular-vote format, where the electors are supposed to reflect the outcome of the vote in that state. But since it was the state legislatures who made those laws, they certainly have the ability to override them if it looks like the alternative is for their state to have no voice in the election at all.

And the Florida state legislature actually talked about doing exactly this during the 2000 election. However, Florida actually had a certified count. By and large, the legislature preferred not to step in if they absolutely didn't have to.

 

[Care4all]

It will depend on how the rest of the election goes.

I believe the President Pro Tempore would take the office, and that would currently be Grassley. BUT, if the Congressional elections count and go Democrat, then the President Pro Tempore would be a Democrat, I reckon.

In either case, the President would be neither Trump nor Biden.

Hmm....

I think the House of representatives picks our President, if no winner.... but here's the kicker, I think there is only 1 vote per state.... So I do not know how that works? Do state representatives get together and vote on who gets chosen for their state, then submit that person as the vote from their state?

Incorrect; The electoral College is the only AUTHORIZED body to do this under the US Constitution. There are date certian time lines under Title 1 US Code that codify these. They miss the deadline they lose their electors. Enjoy your mail in ballot mess because it is going to be an unmitigated disaster.

If the electoral college does not meet the timeline, then Congress chooses, is my understanding.

And this is why everyone thought what the SC did in Bush v Gore was unconstitutional. The SC should have let the constitutional process, work through.

What's the likelihood that all fifty states would certify no vote count at all, AND that all fifty of those state legislatures would decline to choose the slate of electors themselves? The House of Representatives decides in the case of no clear majority winner.

And everyone thought what the Supreme Court did in 2000 was "Unconstitutional" primarily because the "everyone" in question consisted of a bunch of morons who hadn't a clue what was actually happening. As I explained at the time, the Florida Supreme Court intervened where it had no business and contradicted the written law of the state. All the US Supreme Court did was hear an appeal of the Florida court's decision and rule - quite correctly - that the lower court had violated the law.

It was the Florida Supreme Court that should have let the process as written in the law of its own state work through.

Not likely that all states would not have a count.... but even a couple of big states not having electors by the electoral college voting day, could cause there to not have 1 candidate who has reached the required 270 EC votes to win.

If states have written in to their election laws a measure for the legislature to just pick them, if out of time, then it seems they could simply select a slate to send.... And depending on the State who has to do that, it could hurt the Dems!!!

But, I'm not certain what states may have that as a provision in their election laws?

Florida in 2000 comes to mind.... You would think if they had this provision of the legislature picking the slate of electors, the republicans for Bush should not have needed to sue, to stop the count, so electors could be decided in time????

The only states pushing for this last minute change to massive mail in ballots are Dimwinger states, so who do you think will get hurt when they can't count the votes like in the NY primary?

Fund the post office, fund the poll/ absentee counters, clean up election rolls, make ballots scanable with tracing, and we're all set.

We sent astronauts to the moon, we spit the atom,

We certainly can handle an election, as safely as possible, during a pandemic.

 

[kyzr]

It would go to the Senate in this hypothetical situation. There would be no Speaker of the House, as those results would also likely be in dispute. However, unlike the House, the Senate does not have all members up for election, the body would remain intact, at least as far as the 2/3rds not up for election in 2020. But, in no scenario, would the public settle for allowing a senior Senator to serve a full term as President, while dismissing 100+ million votes.

I believe, as the situation became more clear, a constitutional crisis would begin. In this case, I believe an emergency race to pass, either by the states or congress, a constitutional amendment to deal with such a situation where results could not be validated, perhaps as far as a constitutional convention to settle the issue. A very dangerous option indeed.

WRONG.....

Members of both The U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives are sworn into office on January 3. IF the Presidential Election is NOT validated on or by January 21, under the Constitution the election goes to the U.S. House of Representatives. Which means if the Dems have the majority, Mr. Biden wins.

Under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the succession line is clear.

1. President of the United States.

2. Vice President of the United States.

3. Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

4. President Pro-Tem of the U.S. Senate.

5. U.S. Secretary of State.

In the scenario I am speculating about, and many others, a new House would be unable to be seated due to a lack of confidence in the voting results. So, how does the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 work when a House Majority is unable to be determined? If the majority is unknown due to election disputes, who is the Speaker of House in January 2021?

1. Most states have LAWS that their vote count needs to be certified by a certain date so that their certified vote counts can be sent to DC by noon on January 6th when the VP opens the state ballots and counts the EC votes. So IMHO the various state secretaries of states would just forward the vote counts that are not in dispute as that state's official certified vote count as required by law.
2. If a few state secretaries refuse to send the votes to DC on time because of court orders or some other issue, that's when it gets into the weeds. Say 40 states send in their votes on time and 10 don't. Those 10 states' EC votes don't count, ever. So would the VP when counting the valid EC votes just declare the winner with the most valid EC votes on January 6th, 270 or not?
Probably. I don't know what the Constitution says about state votes not certified on time.
3. The new House and Senate are sworn in on January 3rd. If a few states don't certify a house or senate race on time what happens?
Does the governor send a temp in? (saw this happen)
Or is the seat vacant until the race is certified? (saw vacant seats too)
Either way, the House and Senate are fully formed and functional on January 3rd.

So I'm not seeing a "Constitutional Crisis" on the horizon because the secretaries of states will certify winners on time as required by state law.

In response to #2: So if I remember correctly - and I may not - the hard deadline is REALLY the day that the electors cast their votes. If a state misses that date, then Congress can ignore that state's electors as though they never existed. I can't swear to it, but I believe that the majority needed to win changes at that point. In the election of 1864, it was the middle of a war. The 11 states which had seceded obviously weren't going to participate. The winner - Lincoln - was decided by the majority of appointed electors. Seems logical to me, given the exact wording of the law.

Also - and again, I can't swear to it - the Constitution gives the ultimate responsibility for choosing electors to the state legislatures. Theoretically, I think those legislatures could simply step in and choose the slate of electors.

In response to #3: Senators can be appointed to fill vacant seats by their state's governor. Representatives have to be elected, apparently. Think back to the last time a Representative died, or moved on to another job in the middle of his term. There was a special election. Presuming that there were at least SOME House races with certified votes, I suppose we'd function with a really small House until the seats could be filled.

I sincerely doubt any state election official - I don't actually know if every state has a Secretary of State, per se - is going to 86 his or her job by not certifying some sort of vote count on the legal deadline and allowing the state to be ignored during a Presidential election. That person would not only be unemployed, he'd probably be tarred and feathered.

Thanks, your answers, they make sense.
So the actual "drop dead" deadline for resolving the state's vote count, court battles and all is ~mid-December:
"Each state's electors meet in their respective state capital on the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December to cast their votes. "

United States Electoral College - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I stand corrected:
Senators can be temps appointed by the governor
Representatives need to be elected.

I agree that each state's Secretary of State will forward the state's vote count on time, irrespective of ballot by ballot court battles. So any "Constitutional crisis" looks doubtful.

 

[Nostra]

It will depend on how the rest of the election goes.

I believe the President Pro Tempore would take the office, and that would currently be Grassley. BUT, if the Congressional elections count and go Democrat, then the President Pro Tempore would be a Democrat, I reckon.

In either case, the President would be neither Trump nor Biden.

Hmm....

I think the House of representatives picks our President, if no winner.... but here's the kicker, I think there is only 1 vote per state.... So I do not know how that works? Do state representatives get together and vote on who gets chosen for their state, then submit that person as the vote from their state?

Incorrect; The electoral College is the only AUTHORIZED body to do this under the US Constitution. There are date certian time lines under Title 1 US Code that codify these. They miss the deadline they lose their electors. Enjoy your mail in ballot mess because it is going to be an unmitigated disaster.

If the electoral college does not meet the timeline, then Congress chooses, is my understanding.

And this is why everyone thought what the SC did in Bush v Gore was unconstitutional. The SC should have let the constitutional process, work through.

What's the likelihood that all fifty states would certify no vote count at all, AND that all fifty of those state legislatures would decline to choose the slate of electors themselves? The House of Representatives decides in the case of no clear majority winner.

And everyone thought what the Supreme Court did in 2000 was "Unconstitutional" primarily because the "everyone" in question consisted of a bunch of morons who hadn't a clue what was actually happening. As I explained at the time, the Florida Supreme Court intervened where it had no business and contradicted the written law of the state. All the US Supreme Court did was hear an appeal of the Florida court's decision and rule - quite correctly - that the lower court had violated the law.

It was the Florida Supreme Court that should have let the process as written in the law of its own state work through.

Not likely that all states would not have a count.... but even a couple of big states not having electors by the electoral college voting day, could cause there to not have 1 candidate who has reached the required 270 EC votes to win.

If states have written in to their election laws a measure for the legislature to just pick them, if out of time, then it seems they could simply select a slate to send.... And depending on the State who has to do that, it could hurt the Dems!!!

But, I'm not certain what states may have that as a provision in their election laws?

Florida in 2000 comes to mind.... You would think if they had this provision of the legislature picking the slate of electors, the republicans for Bush should not have needed to sue, to stop the count, so electors could be decided in time????

The only states pushing for this last minute change to massive mail in ballots are Dimwinger states, so who do you think will get hurt when they can't count the votes like in the NY primary?

Fund the post office, fund the poll/ absentee counters, clean up election rolls, make ballots scanable with tracing, and we're all set.

We sent astronauts to the moon, we spit the atom,

We certainly can handle an election, as safely as possible, during a pandemic.

Cleaning up election rolls is racist.

 

[kyzr]

We are in unique situation here. I don't believe some states even stand a chance of meeting the deadlines this time around.

The "drop dead" deadline is mid-December. The Secretaries of State will most certainly certify all the legal votes tabulated by the deadline in order to have their votes count in the election. If a few votes are being litigated, they won't matter. The Constitution stipulates the deadlines. The states should have a better voting system if they can't count the votes on time,.

 

[bravoactual]

It will depend on how the rest of the election goes.

I believe the President Pro Tempore would take the office, and that would currently be Grassley. BUT, if the Congressional elections count and go Democrat, then the President Pro Tempore would be a Democrat, I reckon.

In either case, the President would be neither Trump nor Biden.

Hmm....

I think the House of representatives picks our President, if no winner.... but here's the kicker, I think there is only 1 vote per state.... So I do not know how that works? Do state representatives get together and vote on who gets chosen for their state, then submit that person as the vote from their state?

Incorrect; The electoral College is the only AUTHORIZED body to do this under the US Constitution. There are date certian time lines under Title 1 US Code that codify these. They miss the deadline they lose their electors. Enjoy your mail in ballot mess because it is going to be an unmitigated disaster.

If the electoral college does not meet the timeline, then Congress chooses, is my understanding.

And this is why everyone thought what the SC did in Bush v Gore was unconstitutional. The SC should have let the constitutional process, work through.

What's the likelihood that all fifty states would certify no vote count at all, AND that all fifty of those state legislatures would decline to choose the slate of electors themselves? The House of Representatives decides in the case of no clear majority winner.

And everyone thought what the Supreme Court did in 2000 was "Unconstitutional" primarily because the "everyone" in question consisted of a bunch of morons who hadn't a clue what was actually happening. As I explained at the time, the Florida Supreme Court intervened where it had no business and contradicted the written law of the state. All the US Supreme Court did was hear an appeal of the Florida court's decision and rule - quite correctly - that the lower court had violated the law.

It was the Florida Supreme Court that should have let the process as written in the law of its own state work through.

Not likely that all states would not have a count.... but even a couple of big states not having electors by the electoral college voting day, could cause there to not have 1 candidate who has reached the required 270 EC votes to win.

If states have written in to their election laws a measure for the legislature to just pick them, if out of time, then it seems they could simply select a slate to send.... And depending on the State who has to do that, it could hurt the Dems!!!

But, I'm not certain what states may have that as a provision in their election laws?

Florida in 2000 comes to mind.... You would think if they had this provision of the legislature picking the slate of electors, the republicans for Bush should not have needed to sue, to stop the count, so electors could be decided in time????

The only states pushing for this last minute change to massive mail in ballots are Dimwinger states, so who do you think will get hurt when they can't count the votes like in the NY primary?

The only people actively suppressing the vote of RePuBliKlans.

 

[Nostra]

It will depend on how the rest of the election goes.

I believe the President Pro Tempore would take the office, and that would currently be Grassley. BUT, if the Congressional elections count and go Democrat, then the President Pro Tempore would be a Democrat, I reckon.

In either case, the President would be neither Trump nor Biden.

Hmm....

I think the House of representatives picks our President, if no winner.... but here's the kicker, I think there is only 1 vote per state.... So I do not know how that works? Do state representatives get together and vote on who gets chosen for their state, then submit that person as the vote from their state?

Incorrect; The electoral College is the only AUTHORIZED body to do this under the US Constitution. There are date certian time lines under Title 1 US Code that codify these. They miss the deadline they lose their electors. Enjoy your mail in ballot mess because it is going to be an unmitigated disaster.

If the electoral college does not meet the timeline, then Congress chooses, is my understanding.

And this is why everyone thought what the SC did in Bush v Gore was unconstitutional. The SC should have let the constitutional process, work through.

What's the likelihood that all fifty states would certify no vote count at all, AND that all fifty of those state legislatures would decline to choose the slate of electors themselves? The House of Representatives decides in the case of no clear majority winner.

And everyone thought what the Supreme Court did in 2000 was "Unconstitutional" primarily because the "everyone" in question consisted of a bunch of morons who hadn't a clue what was actually happening. As I explained at the time, the Florida Supreme Court intervened where it had no business and contradicted the written law of the state. All the US Supreme Court did was hear an appeal of the Florida court's decision and rule - quite correctly - that the lower court had violated the law.

It was the Florida Supreme Court that should have let the process as written in the law of its own state work through.

Not likely that all states would not have a count.... but even a couple of big states not having electors by the electoral college voting day, could cause there to not have 1 candidate who has reached the required 270 EC votes to win.

If states have written in to their election laws a measure for the legislature to just pick them, if out of time, then it seems they could simply select a slate to send.... And depending on the State who has to do that, it could hurt the Dems!!!

But, I'm not certain what states may have that as a provision in their election laws?

Florida in 2000 comes to mind.... You would think if they had this provision of the legislature picking the slate of electors, the republicans for Bush should not have needed to sue, to stop the count, so electors could be decided in time????

The only states pushing for this last minute change to massive mail in ballots are Dimwinger states, so who do you think will get hurt when they can't count the votes like in the NY primary?

The only people actively suppressing the vote of RePuBliKlans.

Link?