response 33 of 56:

Nov 6 23:17 UTC 2000

        Thanks for your commentary, Mary.

response 35 of 56:

Nov 11 03:51 UTC 2000

I'd say it's a tie so they should both be president.

response 37 of 56:

Nov 11 05:34 UTC 2000

I think when the Michigan House was split 50-50 they decided that first one
party would be in charge for a year, and then the other.  Letting each of Bush
and Gore have a 2 year term would be a decent solution.  Or we could cut out
half of each guy's brain and emplant it in a neutral brainless host
(Buchanan?) and let that be President.  I'd say both these outcomes are
equally likely.

response 39 of 56:

Nov 12 04:17 UTC 2000

Lawrence Summers could be President in January... I found that mildly amusing.
=}
(After I found out who Lawrence Summers was, of course...)

Reason, according to the source: If this nonsense isn't resolved by 1/20, the
House might be compelled to conclude that, pro tem, the rules for dead
presidents apply. After all, Clinton has to go. Rules: First the VP (who also
has to go), then the House Speaker, then the President Pro Tem of the Senate,
then the Sec of State, Sec of Treasry, and so on through the cabinet.

Assuming the house Speaker (I forget his name) and the Senate Pro Tem
(Thurmond) decline to quit their day jobs to be Pres, it would skip Albright
(not native born) and go to Summers (Treasury).

I doub thighly that would happen (for that matter, I don't even know if my
source is right), but it *IS* amusing.

response 41 of 56:

Nov 12 06:08 UTC 2000

Why should they expire? They are not elected, and serve until their
successors are appointed.

response 43 of 56:

Nov 12 20:41 UTC 2000

Article XX. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon
on the 20th day of January ... of the years in which such terms would have
ended if this article had not been ratified. ... If a President shall not have
bheen chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term... then the
Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have
qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither
a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring
who shall then act as President.

My reading of that and Article XII suggests also that this scenario is
possible: Bush gets 271, Gore gets 267. Two electors are disgusted enough with
Bush's behavior that they choose not to vote fgor him, but they DO cast their
ballots for Cheney. The court battles in Florida have taken so much time that
the Electoral College date is moved, and so theHouse doesn't have enough time
to vote for a replacement for Bush. Come Jan. 20, CHENEY is sworn in as
President pro tem. Again, that doesn't seem very likely, either, but it seems
LEGAL, at least as far as I can tell.

Yet another possibility: Gore wins in the House, while Cheney wins in the
Electoral College. Have they changed the system, so the President and VP HAVE
to come as a pair, or is it still the same way as described in Article XII?

BTW, my read of Article XII is that, when the House breaks an Electoral
College non-majority, each STATE gets a vote (for a total of 50): But in
choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation
from each State having one vote. Am I reading that correctly, and, if so, has
anybody done THAT math? Even though the House is narrowly Rep (so a
one-vote-per-rep vote would go to Bush), some states are heavily Republican.
How would a one-vote-per-state vote go?

response 45 of 56:

Nov 13 00:12 UTC 2000

I would imagine the split delegations would have to decide how to vote, and
vote. They'd get one vote. It sounds like, to get that majority, the Reps
would only have to get one of those four split states to vote for Bush. that
wouldn't be that difficult, I imagine... IL might be difficult, but AK or NV
should be easy.

response 47 of 56:

Nov 13 04:48 UTC 2000

resp:43  (D.C. [or one of the other whatchamacall'ems] would be the 51st
        vote, I'd imagine.)

response 49 of 56:

Nov 13 04:52 UTC 2000

Nope; DC does not have representation in the Congress.  They get three votes
in the Electoral College, but none in the House and Senate.

I wonder if Guam's representative gets to vote on these matters?

response 51 of 56:

Nov 13 21:14 UTC 2000

I meant in the House, not in the Electoral College, Larry.  I *know*
DC gets representation in the EC; I don't *think* it has representation
in the House.  Guam has representation in the House but not in the EC.
Does Puerto Rico have representation in the House?

(Trivia note: Guam's first Representative was also the first Guamian to
achieve flag rank: He was a Brigadier General at Quantico when I served
there.)

response 53 of 56:

Nov 14 04:39 UTC 2000

Re 51-52.  American Samoa, D.C., Guam, and the Virgin Islands each get a
non-voting Delegate in the U.S. House.  Puerto Rico gets a non-voting
Resident Commissioner, which is essentially the same thing.

response 55 of 56:

Nov 14 05:12 UTC 2000

I think the non-voting reps ARE authorized to vote in the committees to
which they are appointed, so they are not completely powerless.  Indeed, I
can imagine that voting power in committee may be more important than
voting power on the floor of the House.

Of course, none of these areas has any representation whatever in the
Senate.