Trump wins neither the popular vote nor the electoral vote, but still wins the presidency - a legitimately possible scenario. (1 Viewer)

[brandon]

This is not typical tinfoil "Trump won't give up the presidency" conspiracy. This is a legitimately possible situation in our upcoming election, following the legitimate rules of the vote.

So I went to CNN.com today and played around with the Road to 270 generator for about 5 minutes before stumbling on this disaster. As it stands, they currently have the states listed in yellow as battlegrounds:

And while those are all battlegrounds, it's absolutely within the realm of possibility that Trump wins all of those states. How do I know that? Well, he won every single one of them in 2016:

So check out the Constitutional crisis that ensues if you give all of those states to Trump except for Maine's second district:

In this completely plausible scenario, Trump likely does not win the popular vote (he has fewer states than he did in 2016), and he ties the electoral college. According to wiki, in this scenario, each state then gets one vote (DC does not get a vote) instead of the normal electoral college number.

Presidential election
Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, the House of Representatives is required to go into session immediately after the counting of the electoral votes to vote for president if no candidate for the office receives a majority of the electoral votes. In this event, the House is limited to choosing from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each state delegation votes en bloc, with each state having a single vote. A candidate is required to receive an absolute majority of state delegation votes (currently 26 votes) in order for that candidate to become the president-elect. The District of Columbia, which is not a state, does not receive a vote. The House continues balloting until it elects a president.

Historically, a delegation that did not give a majority of its vote to any one candidate was marked as "divided", and thus did not award its vote to any candidate. This practice, set by House rule, was responsible for turning the Jefferson–Burr election of 1801 into a multiple ballot election. It was not a factor in the 1825 contingent election. The House could modify the rule for future contingent elections if it so chose.

Additionally, previous contingent presidential elections were held in closed session, and as such, the vote of each individual representative was not explicitly revealed outside the House Journal. The Constitution does not require a closed session for contingent elections, and future contingent elections could be held in an open session with public voting.[2]

In this scenario, Trump wins 27 states, Biden wins 23 states, and Trump wins the presidency with neither a popular nor electoral majority.

 

[Nebaghead]

This is not typical tinfoil "Trump won't give up the presidency" conspiracy. This is a legitimately possible situation in our upcoming election, following the legitimate rules of the vote.

So I went to CNN.com today and played around with the Road to 270 generator for about 5 minutes before stumbling on this disaster. As it stands, they currently have the states listed in yellow as battlegrounds:

And while those are all battlegrounds, it's absolutely within the realm of possibility that Trump wins all of those states. How do I know that? Well, he won every single one of them in 2016:

So check out the Constitutional crisis that ensues if you give all of those states to Trump except for Maine's second district:

In this completely plausible scenario, Trump likely does not win the popular vote (he has fewer states than he did in 2016), and he ties the electoral college. According to wiki, in this scenario, each state then gets one vote (DC does not get a vote) instead of the normal electoral college number.




In this scenario, Trump wins 27 states, Biden wins 23 states, and Trump wins the presidency with neither a popular nor electoral majority.

Nebraska’s Second District could be the breaking point since they split. Obama won it and I think it was pretty close for Hillary even.

 

[CoolBrees]

So basically the future of the whole free world rests on either the second district of Nebraska or the state of Wisconsin......


Yep that is going to give me nightmares

 

[Nebaghead]

So basically the future of the whole free world rests on either the second district of Nebraska or the state of Wisconsin......


Yep that is going to give me nightmares

Omaha isn’t a fan of Trump. My conservative in laws are voting for Biden and they are the over 70 demographic that The GOP usually dominates.

 

[Optimus Prime]

This is not typical tinfoil "Trump won't give up the presidency" conspiracy. This is a legitimately possible situation in our upcoming election, following the legitimate rules of the vote.

So I went to CNN.com today and played around with the Road to 270 generator for about 5 minutes before stumbling on this disaster. As it stands, they currently have the states listed in yellow as battlegrounds:

And while those are all battlegrounds, it's absolutely within the realm of possibility that Trump wins all of those states. How do I know that? Well, he won every single one of them in 2016:

So check out the Constitutional crisis that ensues if you give all of those states to Trump except for Maine's second district:

In this completely plausible scenario, Trump likely does not win the popular vote (he has fewer states than he did in 2016), and he ties the electoral college. According to wiki, in this scenario, each state then gets one vote (DC does not get a vote) instead of the normal electoral college number.




In this scenario, Trump wins 27 states, Biden wins 23 states, and Trump wins the presidency with neither a popular nor electoral majority.

Why do we refuse to let whoever more people voted for win?

If it were possible for it to get to a 25-25 state split The next step still wouldn’t be most votes

I’m guessing it’s whoever can hold their breath the longest then Rock Paper Scissors