What if Gary Johnson wins the electoral votes of just one state, and prevents a majority in the electoral college?
This is not a "Vote for Gary Johnson or don't vote for Gary Johnson" post. I'm an anarchist, and would like to see the state abolished and replaced with nothing. This post is nothing more than a "Hey, what would happen if neither Clinton nor Trump attained a majority of votes in the Electoral College?"
However, you can consider this a "Hillary Clinton belongs in prison" post, if you'd like. That's fair, because that strumpet does belong in prison.
So, what happens if no candidate obtains a majority vote in the electoral college? To answer this question, we need to reference the US Constitution, specifically the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1804, which reads:
"The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists 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 for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing 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. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. --]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
--* this date of March 4th was superseded by the 20th Amendment to January 20th.
So what does this mean in layman's terms? What this means is, if neither Clinton nor Trump get a majority in the electoral college, then the vote goes to the House of Representatives. The lesser house of congress meets on January 6th to ratify the electoral college votes, so if neither candidate obtains a majority, it will be the newly (s)elected House of Representatives that chooses the President. They will be forced to choose among the top 3 vote getters of the Electoral College. Each state delegation gets only one vote for this contingency, and a majority of the vote is required to win the Presidency.
Given these facts, the lone Representative in Wyoming would receive the same voting power as the 53 Representatives in California. This is an important note, since the democrats do well in the more popular states, it is unlikely that Clinton will be able to obtain any more than 17-19 votes here. Also, if Donald Trump and Gary Johnson somehow split the remainder, Clinton would not be able to swoop in and win the Presidency with a plurality of the vote. If none of the candidates gets a majority on the first ballot, then the House continues to vote until an eligible candidate is able obtain a majority. If the House cannot settle on a candidate before January 20th, then the Vice-President elect shall act as the President until the House is able to choose a candidate for President (see more below).
So who is the Vice-President elect if none of the candidates wins the Electoral College? Well, that question is decided by the greater congressional house known as the Senate, and they are forced to choose from the top 2 vote getters in the Electoral College. Each Senator gets one vote, and a majority is required to win the Vice-Presidency. This makes it very unlikely that Gary Johnson's running mate (Weld) would be able to qualify to be chosen, even though Gary Johnson could be eligible to become President.
So what does this all mean? If Gary Johnson can win only one state, and the cards fall just right, then the new House of Representatives will be the ones to choose who becomes President, regardless of the popular vote, or the vote of the electoral college. They can vote however they like, as long as they vote for a candidate that is a top 3 vote getter in the electoral college.
I know this is unlikely, and I don't really care if this actually happens. I absolutely doubt that anything on the federal level will be any less criminal regardless of who is elected President. I just find it to be an interesting thought experiment. One that would really piss off the uninformed masses if it were to happen, though it shouldn't, because it was actually instituted with the intent and integrity to protect them. The uninformed masses will all be trying to take a crash course on the Constitution if it did happen.
I think that in this election, it is a more likely outcome than any election in the last century. I wouldn't mind seeing it happen for the sake of watching the shitshow unfold. You can't deny it, that's good comedy.
Now that you are informed of the procedure, if this does happen, all of your statist friends will be looking to you for answers. I always found it comical that I as an anarchist seem to know way more about government than many of my friends that have an unquestioning willingness to steal from their neighbors and give to a group they know to be corrupt.
If this scenario does happen and they start asking you what happens and why, use it to your advantage to convince people that government is an unnecessary evil and is unfit to exist in the first place.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this post, up vote and comment to see what the steemian community thinks of this.