Pelosi raises possibility of becoming acting president in chaotic election outcome

[Right_in_Virginia]

Pelosi raises possibility of becoming acting president in chaotic election outcome
Washington Examiner, Oct 1, 2020

Speaker Nancy Pelosi raised the possibility that she might become acting president if neither President Trump nor Democratic nominee Joe Biden wins enough electoral votes to declare victory in the election on or after Nov. 3.

Pelosi, a California Democrat, told reporters Thursday that she is preparing House Democrats for a potential role in determining the winner with a vote by each state delegation.

But if a majority still does not emerge for either Trump or Biden, Pelosi said, “then it goes into another range where the speaker becomes the [president]. It’s complicated after that.”

It is rare for the House to play a role in determining the outcome of a presidential election, and it hasn’t happened in 150 years. But Pelosi is girding party lawmakers to play a role if the election is so close that neither Trump nor Biden is the electoral winner.

In such a scenario, each House state delegation would cast one vote for president, depending on the majority party in each delegation.

Pelosi said she is aiming for Democrats to be able to cast at least 26 votes, a bare majority, which would hand the White House to Biden.

The Senate, meanwhile, would be empowered with voting to determine the vice president.


More: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/pelosi-raises-possibility-of-becoming-acting-president-in-chaotic-election-outcome

[Right_in_Virginia]

Another reason to retake the House.

[RedHead]

The election will be decided long before December 14 so this is absolute nonsense on Pelosi's part.

[Gefn]

I’m going to play Devils advocate but is it a sure thing that Nancy will be elected?
Nothing is Ever a sure thing.

This has been one crazy year.

[verga]

I’m going to play Devils advocate but is it a sure thing that Nancy will be elected?
Nothing is Ever a sure thing.

This has been one crazy year.

Your lips to God's ears

[RedHead]

I’m going to play Devils advocate but is it a sure thing that Nancy will be elected?
Nothing is Ever a sure thing.

This has been one crazy year.

No, but it's San Francisco.  They would elect anyone so long as they ran as a Democrat.

[andy58-in-nh]

No, but it's San Francisco.  They would elect anyone so long as they ran as a Democrat.

Most state and local races in California are now contests between competing Democrats. Republicans don't even bother to run, or else they are excluded by primary rules where Democrats are the top 2 or 3 vote-getters.   

[rustynail]

If Trump and Pence are in quarantine shouldn't Pelosi be the President?

[Hoodat]

If Trump and Pence are in quarantine shouldn't Pelosi be the President?

Uh, no.  A President can still fulfill his functions as President while under quarantine.  And according to the Constitution, he will continue to do so through Jan 20 of next year.  Pelosi is an idiot.

[bilo]

Speaker Nancy Pelosi raised the possibility that she might become acting president if neither President Trump nor Democratic nominee Joe Biden wins enough electoral votes to declare victory in the election on or after Nov. 3.

Not a chance of it happening, the State legislatures will appoint electors who must vote by Dec. 15th. 30 State legislatures are controlled by Pubs, 18 State legislatures are controlled by Rats and 2 State legislatures are divided. I believe all the key swing States are controlled by Pubs. Also, if for some reason the electoral college doesn't give either candidate a majority the House will vote, but the vote is by State. In this case the representatives in a State determine how that State will vote and just like the Electors being selected the Pubs control the States.

I believe this is why the Rats started to down play the mail in voting and started encouraging their voters to go to the polls. If they tie up the results for too long the system does not work to their favor. Also, Trump unlike previous Pubs will fight.

[Victoria33]

I’m going to play Devils advocate but is it a sure thing that Nancy will be elected?
Nothing is Ever a sure thing. This has been one crazy year.

@Gefn

First, Barron does NOT have the virus.  That info. just came out on TV.

The presidential succession is, if president cannot act, automatically goes to Vice-President, if he cannot act, automatically goes to the Speaker of the House.

[GtHawk]

Apparently Nancy has had quite enough of Joe taking her crown of most demented democrat.

[Cyber Liberty]

Most state and local races in California are now contests between competing Democrats. Republicans don't even bother to run, or else they are excluded by primary rules where Democrats are the top 2 or 3 vote-getters.

Jungle Primaries are probably the most destructive features that guarantee one-party rule.

[XenaLee]

Uh, no.  A President can still fulfill his functions as President while under quarantine.  And according to the Constitution, he will continue to do so through Jan 20 of next year.  Pelosi is an idiot.

And that... is an insult to idiots everywhere.   What Pelosi is goes waaay beyond mere idiocy. 

[skeeter]

Jungle Primaries are probably the most destructive features that guarantee one-party rule.

Everything CA has done recently is specifically geared towards perpetuating one party rule, which we now have and will have for the foreseeable future.

And CA is the prototype for the rest of the nation, should they be given the opportunity.

I hope everyone in the nation now fully understands this.

[XenaLee]

Everything CA has done recently is specifically geared towards perpetuating one party rule, which we now have and will have for the foreseeable future.

And CA is the prototype for the rest of the nation, should they be given the opportunity.

I hope everyone in the nation now fully understands this.

Everyone doesn't understand it.  Not even close.   Thanks mostly to our overtly leftist-biased media and to decades of leftist indoctrination in public schools and universities.

[Hoodat]

The presidential succession is, if president cannot act, automatically goes to Vice-President, if he cannot act, automatically goes to the Speaker of the House.

Nope.  That is not what the Constitution says.  Better go read Amendment XXV.  Nowhere in that does the Speaker become President if the President is incapacitated.

[Fishrrman]

bilo wrote:
"Not a chance of it happening, the State legislatures will appoint electors who must vote by Dec. 15th. "

I don't think those states (almost all of them blue) will be smart enough to do this.

Because by choosing a slate of "appointed electors", the legislatures of these states will have to over-ride the vote tallies (at least the votes that have been tallied to that point), or ignore any ongoing court orders/lawsuits, etc.

Instead, they'll bumble ahead blindly up to December 14th, when they run smack into the "wall of the 12th Amendment".

Before going further, I'd like to insert a quote from TOS by a poster named "Political Junkie Too ":
===================
The 12th amendment says:
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;
Article II Section 1 says:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...
The 12 amendment clearly states a candidate needs to win "a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed." This means that the threshold is reduced from 270 by half the count of Electors from each state that fails to appoint. It does NOT mean that states can drop out but the candidate must still reach 270.
===================

The contest for president will be decided on December 14/15 by the vote of the Electoral College.

The vote will proceed (as per the 12th Amendment) whether every state has presented "appointed electors" or not.
BUT...
If fewer than 535 Appointed Electors show up, as per the 12th Amendment above, a "majority" will not be 270, but rather the "a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed".

This means that "Electors NOT appointed" WON'T COUNT towards that majority.

That's what I see coming if the "mail-in vote states" can't get it together by December 14th. They will have no "appointed electors". And no vote.

And this IS going to end up before the Supreme Court, which will need to render one or possibly several opinions in very short order.

And that's why we need Amy Coney Barrett sitting on the Court as soon as possible...

[Hoodat]

That's what I see coming if the "mail-in vote states" can't get it together by December 14th. They will have no "appointed electors". And no vote.

This is what I fear.  Let's say Pennsylvania goes for Trump.  But the Democrat governor throws up enough interference that the 20 electors are not appointed by Dec 14.  So the threshold is now reduced from 270 to 260.  And 20 votes that Trump would have had now disappear.  Biden loses Pennsylvania, but his road to the White House is now easier because he needs only 260.  Compare that with Trump who now needs 280 after the non-counted PA delegates are included.

[Cyber Liberty]

bilo wrote:
"Not a chance of it happening, the State legislatures will appoint electors who must vote by Dec. 15th. "

I don't think those states (almost all of them blue) will be smart enough to do this.

Because by choosing a slate of "appointed electors", the legislatures of these states will have to over-ride the vote tallies (at least the votes that have been tallied to that point), or ignore any ongoing court orders/lawsuits, etc.

Instead, they'll bumble ahead blindly up to December 14th, when they run smack into the "wall of the 12th Amendment".

Before going further, I'd like to insert a quote from TOS by a poster named "Political Junkie Too ":
===================
The 12th amendment says:
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;
Article II Section 1 says:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...
The 12 amendment clearly states a candidate needs to win "a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed." This means that the threshold is reduced from 270 by half the count of Electors from each state that fails to appoint. It does NOT mean that states can drop out but the candidate must still reach 270.
===================

The contest for president will be decided on December 14/15 by the vote of the Electoral College.

The vote will proceed (as per the 12th Amendment) whether every state has presented "appointed electors" or not.
BUT...
If fewer than 535 Appointed Electors show up, as per the 12th Amendment above, a "majority" will not be 270, but rather the "a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed".

This means that "Electors NOT appointed" WON'T COUNT towards that majority.

That's what I see coming if the "mail-in vote states" can't get it together by December 14th. They will have no "appointed electors". And no vote.

And this IS going to end up before the Supreme Court, which will need to render one or possibly several opinions in very short order.

And that's why we need Amy Coney Barrett sitting on the Court as soon as possible...

The states have to Certify the results of the voting by 35 days (I believe) after the election to satisfy the Safe Harbor provisions in the Federal Election Statutes.  States that fail to certify will not have their EVs count, and the 270 vote threshold should therefore be lowered.  If there's a Precedent, it would be the election of 1864.  I think the Confederation States did not cast votes in the Electoral College.

By several days before December 14, we will know the score.

[bilo]

The states have to Certify the results of the voting by 35 days (I believe) after the election to satisfy the Safe Harbor provisions in the Federal Election Statutes.  States that fail to certify will not have their EVs count, and the 270 vote threshold should therefore be lowered.  If there's a Precedent, it would be the election of 1864.  I think the Confederation States did not cast votes in the Electoral College.

By several days before December 14, we will know the score.

I think you're right, especially if Amy Barrett is confirmed. A 5 vote majority (who ever knows with Roberts) of strict constructionists will look to existing law and precedent.

BTW, I do not believe Governors of States can stop their State legislatures from doing the legally demanded duties.

[DB]

Trump and Pence should announce they are stepping aside paving the way for Nancy to fill in.

And after a day or so say, "just kidding"...

Let Pelosi suck on that...