Is the threshold 270 electors or majority ?

[drray23]

so, I am wondering what would happen if Trump is disqualified in a number of states and somehow Biden is in others in retaliation.

Now, since blue states would be the ones disqualifying Trump and red states doing the same to Biden, that would not result in a gain for either of them (assuming it’s the same number of votes on both sides that are lost ). Would the requirement be 270 or the majority ? if it’s 270 and neither can reach it , it would end up in the house for the deciding vote and I believe it’s by delegation, meaning Trump would win.

obviously none of that will happen but that could be a good plot for a political thriller novel…

[thatdemguy]

1. Its 270

So even if gets disqualified in blue states and wins red and swing states he would become pres.

[getagrip_already]

2. It is 270..

If no candidate gets 270, it goes to an election in the house. Each state appoints one representative, chosen by the state legislature.

Since there are more republican state legislatures, they would choose the potus.

But it would be chosen by the incoming house, not the current one. So state legislatures can change.

[CincyDem]

8. I believe the president would be chosen by the house by state.

Montana or Wyoming’s one R vote would be as influential as New York or California’s one D vote.

I think it’s determined by the house delegation, not the state legislatures.

[Celerity]

9. this is not why the Rethugs in US House have more POTUS votes than us:

Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2024, 05:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Since there are more republican state legislatures, they would choose the potus.

They have more than us because they control more state delegations in the US HOUSE , it has nothing to do with state legislatures (other than indirectly, see directly below)

and due to gerrymandering (via the state legislatures) in WI, FL, (and this go-round in 2024 and beyond, NC), we have zero chance to pull them under the 26 votes they need to elect the Rethug POTUS candidate

[DemocraticPatriot]

13. 'they would chose the potus' ??!!!

Excuse me, but President 'Fighting Joe' Biden IS 'the potus' !


I presume you meant that they would choose Trump....
and yes, if the election goes to the House, we are fucked and the Dictatorship begins...........

Yes, the delegations *could* change, but it is extremely unlikely that the Democrats could control a majority of them.

[The Magistrate]

3. I Believe It Is Majority Of Cast Votes, Sir

Several candidates contended in 1824, and none garnered a majority. The candidate with the plurality of electoral votes lost in the House.

Don't know if it's been revised since, but don't think so.

[The Magistrate]

6. The Statute Seems A Bit Weasly

The criteria is majority of electors appointed. If for some reason, good or bad, a slate of electors was not recognized and could cast no votes, or their votes were not part of the total, it's not immediately clear whether they would be part of the total of electors appointed.

[Igel]

7. Yes, both.

I was sadly disappointed that the Great Wiki failed to actually--in an obvious manner--refer the the final source document on the matter. The curtain has been (yet again) rent.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

"270" might not be the right number if some electors are declined to be appointed. In which case, a majority of those appointed decides the winner.

If there's a tie, the House decides. If there is no majority winner--perhaps because of a third party--the House chooses in a modified voting scheme.

This strikes me as sadly necessary arcana but wise for the Writers to have realized such oddities might occur and accommodate such possible realities. It's one thing to know that leap years exist in 1832--there's a Feb. 29 in years divisible evenly by 4, but in 1832. Few would care about the next phrase, "unless divisible evenly by 100, which is not a leap year," because the next instance would be in 1900, 68 years away, and most would have been to young to care in 1800. Only rarely would the third tier rule apply, "unless also divisible by 400, in which case it is a leap year" and few in 1832 would be around in 2000. (I'm waiting with absolutely no anxiety for a further "unless also divisible" by some number so long after my death that C-14 dating probably won't determine my bones' age before the then-present.)

However, in this age, who knows?

So, sir, you are right--it's a majority. Ideally, that's 270 or more. If there's a deficit of appointed potential electors, then fewer. If a tie, the House chooses. If a split with a third party, and no majority of the electors, the House "chuses."

Gadzooks.

[DemocraticPatriot]

14. In the event that a presidential election is "thrown into the House",

each state gets only one vote--- determined by the votes of their House delegation.....

Republicans now control quite a few more state H.O.R. delegations than the Democrats do.


We have to win the presidential elections outright---
otherwise it is extremely likely that GQP House delegations could install their candidate,
regardless of the popular vote--- even regardless of the popular vote in their own state,
if the Democrat happened to win that....

[The Magistrate]

17. That Is Clear

What isn't quite clear is what happens if, say, no certified electors emerge from the election in Oklahoma, so that 531 instead of 538 electors are appointed. A majority of electors appointed would then be 266, and the regulation could readily be read as indicating that would suffice. Whether it ought to be so read, or would be, is beyond my knowledge.

[DemocraticPatriot]

18. Hmmmmmm..... I dunno.....

On the other hand, such a result would obviously go to court,
where our far-right Supreme Court would "appoint" the Republican candidate to the Presidency,
as they have done before.....


So we have to win presidential elections outright

[The Magistrate]

19. On That Last Point, Sir, We Certainly Agree

[Celerity]

21. Under the Electoral Count Reform Act, if the number of electoral votes cast decreases (e.g., because Congress votes to

sustain an objection and not count a slate of electors, as described below), the number of votes needed to win also decreases. For example, if Congress discards 10 electoral votes, the total number of votes cast drops to 528, and the number of votes needed to win drops to 265. This reduces the incentive for supporters of a losing candidate to try to throw out electoral votes so that Congress can select the president. In the aftermath of the 2020 election, some Trump supporters hoped that if they could get Joe Biden’s electoral votes below 270, then the House could install Trump as president.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-electoral-votes-are-counted-presidential-election

[The Magistrate]

22. Thank You, Ma'am

I knew there had been reform of the process recently, but had not paid attention to the details.

[TwilightZone]

5. Red states won't be disqualifying Biden.

They have no basis -- not even the current SCOTUS would allow that.

[Igel]

10. Much of the rhetoric says that SCOTUS is unbridled and unleashed.

'We have a Constitution? What? Ware? Woof!"

Another chunk of the rhetoric says that SCOTUS should follow public opinion, while exalting the CO SC for saying they don't give a rat's ass about political fallout. ('Hey, they did good, screw public opinion.') It's intimidation diss the Court--but okay to threaten them.

Given that, I agree.

I also think that no reasonable jurist would say that what Trump did on 1/6 was a reasonable part of his Presidential duties. So his immunity claim will be disallowed. But what do I know, I'm not in the mainstream 1% of the political spectrum on the Right Side (meaning "left side&quot of History.

I'm also far from sure that SCOTUS will find that he's engaged in insurrection and should be disallowed. An instance in which a man who agitated for insurrection in the early 1860s pre-Manassas did not engage in verbal support *after* Manassas but simply fell silent and later went home to his place physically in the Confederacy and lay low ... then, later was admitted to Congress. So if there is no active insurrection yet, and you do nothing to actively support it after it begins but before it's ended, that fails the test. Really? Yet there's the Congress-approved example, with no clear counterexample. Will SCOTUS take that as probative? A separate law says that "incitement" counts as "support," but the time of incitement is unclear--before or during? Going with leniency and "innocent until proven guilty" I'd err on the side of it's not disqualifying. Speech is cheap--just look at those pushing for "burn it down" even as building burned and those calling for "defund the police" in summer 2020. Or CHOP or whatever it was called in the PacWest, where insurrectionists denied appointed authorities jurisdiction, set up a separate law enforcement mechanism and rudimentary taxation--effectively declaring independence. Denying access to local authority, there was a death. That's *clearly* insurrection ... I've heard of no repercussions. (Local elected officials supported it and what happened? Laudeamus, gaudeamus.)

It's a snakepit. I don't have a supply anti-venom. Still, Trump will be denied his immunity claim, however mispresented my him and reporters in the media. But the broader issue I'm going with plain popcorn with salt, no butter (no ... butter .... ? )

[TwilightZone]

20. That's generally where I'm at.

I think SCOTUS waits for the appeals court to rule - and kill - the immunity defense and then they let it stand, perhaps without even taking the case.

I think they're unlikely to rule that he engaged in insurrection and should be prohibited from running. I understand (and mostly agree with) the argument that no charges or conviction are required for the 14th, but I don't think SCOTUS is ready to rule that way.

[ColinC]

11. Trump being kept off ballots does have a basis in rule of law

Biden being kept off ballots does not. I believe that courts are still sane enough to know the difference, and will generally tell the difference between the two.

If trump is kept off the Colorado ballot because it is upheld by scotus or the courts, he will likely just not be on enough ballots to matter as a candidate. I imagine that will be the end of his candidacy entirely -as well as for many current congress members.

However if Biden is thrown off any ballots as clear retaliation for Trump, it simply will not hold up in the courts.

[Zeitghost]

27. That will depend on the SCotUS decision

If they decide this is a State issue and a state court or even worse, a single Secretary of State can determine a candidate's eligibility under the 14th amendment, all bets are off.

I don't think that will be the case as this is clearly a federal/constitutional question that needs to be interpreted consistently across all 50 states. But with this court, you never know.

[DemocraticPatriot]

12. If Trump is disqualified from the GE ballot in a number of states,

it seems likely to me that they would allow a 'substitute' Republican candidate (probably chosen by the RNC), to be placed on that state's ballot--- presuming it happened in time for that particular state's ballot deadlines....

If that happened in enough states, there would be a nationwide "write in Trump" movement....

(I am not a lawyer, I have no idea what the legal status of such votes would be--- sounds like a nightmare)


As far as some states trying to take President Biden off of the ballot,
(with no legal case whatsoever),
it would seem that any such states would be those where he had no chance of winning anyway....

(WYOMING, the Dakotas, most of the former Confederacy.... etc etc)

[DemocraticPatriot]

15. 270 electoral votes IS 'the majority'....

269-269 is a "tie",

which would send the election into the US House,
which would guarantee a Republican victory
(where each state has only one vote, but the GQP has the majority of state delegations)

[Polybius]

16. And the Senate chooses the VP

Last edited Fri Jan 5, 2024, 12:01 AM - Edit history (1)

So it would be Trump and Harris.

[Celerity]

23. not if we lose the Senate in 2024, which is, unfortunately fairly likely, the map is horrid

So it would be Trump and Harris.

We are down to 50/50 with Manchin retiring (zero chance we win WV, and even if Manchin had run, he was likely toast)

We have fairly little chance (I am a realist) at flipping any of the 11 Rethug seats (all are in deep red states, except for FL which is now slanting deep red)

and we would have to sweep all of our current Dem/Dem indie aligned seats we have to defend

the hardest to hold will be

WV - gone

so we have to sweep (to keep it 50/50):

MT - Jon Tester
OH - Sherrod Brown
AZ - (a mess with Sinema potentially causing chaos for Gallego)
NV - Jacky Rosen
WI - Tammy Baldwin
MI - (likely Dem primary winner will be the Pelosi bashing, No Labels' Problem Solver member Slotkin, unfortunately)
PA - Bob Casey Jr.

[Polybius]

26. Imagine if they only pick up WV, and it's a 50-50 tie

Harris would be the tiebreaker between herself and whoever Trump picks as his VP nominee.

[brooklynite]

24. The question is irrelevant...

No third Party going is going to get electoral votes and no State Biden is likely to win has a legislature that would pass a law to change the allocation process. Either Biden will get 270+ or Trump will.

[getagrip_already]

25. it is possible if scotus splits the 14th amendment decision....

And allows each state to decide its own ballots.

In that case, it's likely more safe biden states will ban stinky than safe stinky states will ban him. We are stupid that way.

That will have two effects on dem states. First, it will suppress the vote; people will just feel there is no reason to vote. The enemy is not on the ballot. Second, it will give those among us with axes to grind an excuse to cast a protest vote for a third party candidate.

Add the republican votes, the protest votes, and general voter apathy and joe could actually lose a state he would otherwise win. There are plenty of states he will win by a handful of points and has for years. Illinois is one of them. What happens if he lses Chicago because a lot of people decide to go with cornell west?

Don't get complacent. This can end up a fucked up election. Stay vigilant. Keep the pressure up.