What Happens If There's a Tie in the US Presidential Election?

[Social Media]

 

In the United States, the presidential election relies on an Electoral College system, not a direct public vote, and the possibility of an electoral tie always looms. With 538 electoral votes up for grabs, both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are aiming to secure the crucial 270 votes needed to win the presidency. But what happens if both candidates end up with 269 electoral votes each, resulting in a tie?

 

The process of voting for a president in the US is unique. Americans don't directly vote for the president and vice president.

Instead, they vote for electors, members of the Electoral College, who in turn pledge their votes to a specific candidate. Each state has a set number of electors based on its population size. For example, California, the most populous state, has 54 electors, while North Dakota has only three. To win, a candidate must receive a majority of electoral votes—at least 270.

 

If both candidates receive 269 electoral votes each, the election would be decided through a process known as a "contingent election." This system is a constitutional fallback for situations where no candidate wins the majority. In a contingent election, the decision is passed to the House of Representatives, where each state's delegation gets one collective vote. A majority of 26 votes is needed to determine the next president. This process means that states with smaller populations, like North Dakota, carry as much weight as larger states like California.

 

While the House of Representatives would decide the president, the Senate would choose the vice president through a separate vote. In theory, this could lead to a situation where the president and vice president come from different political parties, resulting in an administration from opposite sides of the political spectrum.

 

If a tie remains in the House of Representatives after multiple rounds of voting, the vice president-elect chosen by the Senate would assume the presidency until a clear winner is decided. This ensures there is no vacancy in the office come Inauguration Day. Should there be a tie in the Senate's vice-presidential vote, the Speaker of the House would temporarily assume the role of acting president.

 

Historically, ties in the Electoral College have occurred, though they are rare. The most notable example took place in 1800 when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr received the same number of votes, forcing Congress to vote 36 times before Jefferson was declared president. This election ultimately led to the 12th Amendment, which reformed the voting process to avoid such complications. A contingent election also occurred in 1825 when no candidate secured the necessary majority, and John Quincy Adams was chosen as president despite not winning the popular vote.

 

Though a tie is unlikely, it remains a fascinating part of the American electoral process. With such close margins in swing states, every vote truly counts, and the potential for a tie adds to the drama of what promises to be a highly intense election.

 

Based on a report from: Sky News 2024-10-04

 

 

 

[jippytum]

No chance of a tie in the election. 

If the vote was close the Harris team would find some 'extra votes' as they did to get Biden elected. 

Edited 13 hours ago by jippytum

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, jippytum said:

No chance of a tie in the election. 

If the vote was close the Harris team would find some 'extra votes' as they did to get Biden elected. 

You don't understand how presidential elections work.

Yes a tie is definitely possible.

Not in votes but in the ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

[Jeffrey346]

49 minutes ago, jippytum said:

No chance of a tie in the election. 

If the vote was close the Harris team would find some 'extra votes' as they did to get Biden elected. 

No one found any extra votes. Trump LOST.  Biden won fair and square. 

[Hanaguma]

If there is a tie, Trump wins because he is taller than Harris. That's in the Constitution somewhere. 

[JonnyF]

Won't happen.

 

Trump will walk it. It won't even be close. 

[herfiehandbag]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Won't happen.

 

Trump will walk it. It won't even be close. 

He will walk (waddle) away to

Mar-a-Lago to wait for the courts.

[herfiehandbag]

5 hours ago, Social Media said:

If both candidates receive 269 electoral votes each, the election would be decided through a process known as a "contingent election." This system is a constitutional fallback for situations where no candidate wins the majority. In a contingent election, the decision is passed to the House of Representatives, where each state's delegation gets one collective vote. A majority of 26 votes is needed to determine the next president. This process means that states with smaller populations, like North Dakota, carry as much weight as larger states like California.

 

 

While the House of Representatives would decide the president, the Senate would choose the vice president through a separate vote. In theory, this could lead to a situation where the president and vice president come from different political parties, resulting in an administration from opposite sides of the political spectrum.

 

If a tie remains in the House of Representatives after multiple rounds of voting, the vice president-elect chosen by the Senate would assume the presidency until a clear winner is decided. This ensures there is no vacancy in the office come Inauguration Day. Should there be a tie in the Senate's vice-presidential vote, the Speaker of the House would temporarily assume the role of acting president.

 

Historically, ties in the Electoral College have occurred, though they are rare. The most notable example took place in 1800 when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr received the same number of votes, forcing Congress to vote 36 times before Jefferson was declared president. This election ultimately led to the 12th Amendment, which reformed the voting process to avoid such complications. A contingent election also occurred in 1825 when no candidate secured the necessary majority, and John Quincy Adams was chosen as president despite not winning the popular vote.

 

Though a tie is unlikely, it remains a fascinating part of the American electoral process. With such close margins in swing states, every vote truly counts, and the potential for a tie adds to the drama of what promises to be a highly intense election.

The "ignoring" of the popular vote is perhaps the ultimate in political cynicism.

 

If it is ignored then it cannot claim it is a democratic process, nor can it be considered a Representative Republic, because the clearly expressed majority of the electorate will most definitely not be represented.

 

The present convoluted system may have been good within the physical constraints (time and distance, slow communication), political desires (maintaining the "right people's" grip on power) and given the lack of universal suffrage, all prevailing at the time it was designed, but society, communications and the concept of a democratically elected Presidential form of government has developed and moved on. It is entirely possible to accurately tally and know the popular vote for Presidential Candidates, nationwide, and that should be the final arbiter. After all it is a nationwide election.

 

There is a considerable irony when "the new world", having fought to break free from their perceived tyranny of the "old world", cling to such outdated and essentially undemocratic systems, open to the most blatant of jerrymandering ( because they serve those at the top of their political system) whilst the "old world" has moved on to various forms of far simpler and more representative means of electing their governments.

 

There is much that is flawed with the UK's parliamentary system, and I certainly argue that it needs reform, but at least the party which gets the most votes ends up forming the government.

Edited 11 hours ago by herfiehandbag

[thesetat2013]

No need to worry about this in the upcoming election. If the peoples votes are in Trumps favor, the electoral votes will go against the people and choose Harris like they did previously. If the peoples votes go against Trump. the electoral votes are a shoe-in. 

[Eric Loh]

2 hours ago, jippytum said:

No chance of a tie in the election. 

If the vote was close the Harris team would find some 'extra votes' as they did to get Biden elected. 

Your man was caught on tape asking the Goeorgia SoS to find 11,780 votes. A case of foolish blind loyalty to a convicted felon. 

[john donson]

sudden death match ? fight

[Tropicalevo]

5 hours ago, Social Media said:

But what happens if both candidates end up with 269 electoral votes each, resulting in a tie?

Simple.

Trump supporters will storm the White House.

Trump will state that the democratic votes were fake.

Ergo he is automatically the winner.

[Hanaguma]

1 hour ago, herfiehandbag said:

The "ignoring" of the popular vote is perhaps the ultimate in political cynicism.

 

If it is ignored then it cannot claim it is a democratic process, nor can it be considered a Representative Republic, because the clearly expressed majority of the electorate will most definitely not be represented.

 

The present convoluted system may have been good within the physical constraints (time and distance, slow communication), political desires (maintaining the "right people's" grip on power) and given the lack of universal suffrage, all prevailing at the time it was designed, but society, communications and the concept of a democratically elected Presidential form of government has developed and moved on. It is entirely possible to accurately tally and know the popular vote for Presidential Candidates, nationwide, and that should be the final arbiter. After all it is a nationwide election.

 

There is a considerable irony when "the new world", having fought to break free from their perceived tyranny of the "old world", cling to such outdated and essentially undemocratic systems, open to the most blatant of jerrymandering ( because they serve those at the top of their political system) whilst the "old world" has moved on to various forms of far simpler and more representative means of electing their governments.

 

There is much that is flawed with the UK's parliamentary system, and I certainly argue that it needs reform, but at least the party which gets the most votes ends up forming the government.

Charming story.

 

Yet reality is that very few countries, especially G7, use a direct vote for president. In Canada, for example, the party with the most votes in the last election did not win the election and form the government. 

[mfd101]

You would think that, even in an overly-complex system such as the electoral college nonsense, experience might have suggested to someone that having an EVEN NUMBER of total electoral college votes (538) is, um, not necessarily the sensible way to go.

[herfiehandbag]

36 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Charming story.

 

Yet reality is that very few countries, especially G7, use a direct vote for president. In Canada, for example, the party with the most votes in the last election did not win the election and form the government. 

I am delighted and flattered that you can make the effort to be so condescending as to find it "a charming story".

 

In very many countries the electoral! system is made more complex, by the sheer number of parties. In the UK, for example we have 9, leaving out various independents. I really cannot speak for Canada, although I rather imagine that you do not agree with Mr Trudeau's government. Nonetheless the basic principle which I outlined holds true in the vast majority of cases.

 

In the USA it is effectively a binary choice, so ignoring the majority vote is perhaps more indefensible?

[Hanaguma]

37 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

I am delighted and flattered that you can make the effort to be so condescending as to find it "a charming story".

 

In very many countries the electoral! system is made more complex, by the sheer number of parties. In the UK, for example we have 9, leaving out various independents. I really cannot speak for Canada, although I rather imagine that you do not agree with Mr Trudeau's government. Nonetheless the basic principle which I outlined holds true in the vast majority of cases.

 

In the USA it is effectively a binary choice, so ignoring the majority vote is perhaps more indefensible?

You are right. I am not a Trudeau fan, but he won the election and he is my Prime Minister. 

 

What countries follow a system like you prefer?

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, thesetat2013 said:

No need to worry about this in the upcoming election. If the peoples votes are in Trumps favor, the electoral votes will go against the people and choose Harris like they did previously. If the peoples votes go against Trump. the electoral votes are a shoe-in. 

Delusional nonsense.

[candide]

3 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Charming story.

 

Yet reality is that very few countries, especially G7, use a direct vote for president. In Canada, for example, the party with the most votes in the last election did not win the election and form the government. 

The reality is that most of these countries have a parliamentarian regime (the president has no executive power, and the country is actually led by the PM) so they cannot be compared to a presidential regime such as the U.S.

 

Countries with a Presidential regime, such as France or Brazil, usually have a direct vote for president.

Edited 6 hours ago by candide

[candide]

6 hours ago, jippytum said:

No chance of a tie in the election. 

If the vote was close the Harris team would find some 'extra votes' as they did to get Biden elected. 

Time for the Dems to resurrect Hugo Chavez again! 🤣

[WDSmart]

Wow! I didn't know this...

[jvs]

9 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Won't happen.

 

Trump will walk it. It won't even be close. 

Yes you are right,he can't run because of spurs i believe.

[RuamRudy]

10 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

If there is a tie, Trump wins because he is taller than Harris. That's in the Constitution somewhere. 

 

Does it not also take into account hand size? He's on shaky ground on that one.