Acting President Mike Johnson? Acting President Donald Trump? ActingPresident Joe Biden? ActingPresident Kamala Harris? Acting President Becky Romero?

The 2024 presidential election could be decided by the House if no candidate gets 260 Electoral Votes. (each state gets one vote; if they have a split delegation - of those Representatives sworn in on January 3, 2025 - they might not be able to vote; 26 votes are needed for election)

If no one gets 269 electoral votes to be elected vice president, the Senate votes (one vote per senator) to elect a vice president.

The Senate would be tasked with electing a vice president (each senator, those in office on January 3, 2025). It would not matter whether the vice president-elect is on the same ticket as the president-elect.

There must be a quorum of two-thirds of the whole number of senators in order for a vote to be taken and a majority of the whole number of senators (51) is needed for election.

That means if the Dems keep the Senate (or there's a tie), Republican senators could simply not show up to vote - thereby preventing a Democrat from being elected vice president.

If there's no president-elect and no vice-president elect, the Speaker of the House (whoever the House votes as Speaker) would act as president until a president or vice president is elected.

And if there's no president-elect and no vice-president elect:
Keep in mind that the House can elect ANYONE who is Constitutionally-eligible to be Speaker. That means Republicans, if they keep control of the House, could elect Donald Trump as Speaker who, who upon his resignation as Speaker, would becoming ACTING president. If the Democrats capture the House, they can do the same thing with Biden or Harris (or me!).

If the House (or Senate) at some point before January 20, 2029 is able to break their deadlock, the president-elect (or the vice-president elect) would DISPLACE the ACTING president.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

You'd be a dangerous President because of your extreme hawkishness in foreign policy.

There would be a danger of a hot (nuclear?) war with Russia and you'd probably invade Iran. Imo, you'd potentially create more problems for more people than Cheeto Benito.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@Elessar I was addressing Becky specifically, who is much more hawkish than most liberals. On a par with George W Bush on foreign policy. She still defends the Iraq War.

Just to address the facts: I am not and never have been in favour of Russia doing whatever it wanted
I support the Ukrainians resistance to the invasion and NATO supporting them. I said this from the start of the conflict and I support the principle of national self-determination.

I can debate foreign policy with you and there I things we don't agree on. I'm not obliged to defend a position I don't hold or words that I have not said . Russia is an imperialist power.

Elessar · 26-30, M

@Burnley123 Gotcha, I wrongly assumed the "you" in the first paragraph was a plural one (referring to liberals as a whole, not her specifically). I think this position on Iraq is definitely unpopular, not only among dems but also among republicans these days.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@Elessar At the time, things were different.

A majority of Democrat legislators and almost all Republicans voted for the Iraq War. If you were against the invasion at the time, you were in a minority in Britain too. The Blair labour government backed the war. At the time, opponents of the war were routinely labelled as terrorist sympathisers and friends with Saddam.

Now mainstream opinion has shifted for obvious reasons.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@Burnley123

@Elessar I was addressing Becky specifically, who is much more hawkish than most liberals. On a par with George W Bush on foreign policy. She still defends the Iraq War.

Darn right I still defend it. Although I still maintain if the first one was done right, the second wouldn't have been necessary.

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@Burnley123

A majority of Democrat legislators and almost all Republicans voted for the Iraq War. If you were against the invasion at the time, you were in a minority in Britain too. The Blair labour government backed the war. At the time, opponents of the war were routinely labelled as terrorist sympathisers and friends with Saddam.

Found a chart that easier to read than trying to create a table (tabs don't work on SW).

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@beckyromero Fair play.

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@Burnley123

Here are the Roll Call votes:

Senate:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1072/vote_107_2_00237.htm

Dem Yeas included: Biden, Clinton, Edwards, Feinstein, Kerry, Schumer
Dem Nays included: Byrd, Durbin, Feingold, Kennedy

House:
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2002455