this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024
83 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19086 readers
3984 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
83
Razor-tight races could leave House control in limbo for weeks (thehill.com)
submitted 1 week ago by grue@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] grue@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Copying my comment from the cross-posted thread:

Remember: the EC vote is certified by the new Congress, whose term begins Jan 3. The Republicans currently hold the House and would certainly vote to install Trump in the event of a contingent election, but who knows if they'll still have control after Jan 3.

But if they somehow manage to delay the resolution of tight House races that would provide a Democratic majority beyond Jan 3, it might be possible for the Republicans to temporarily steal control. On top of that, if Republicans did have control they'd have to pick a Speaker -- it would not automatically be Mike Johnson -- in order for the Presidential certification on Jan 6 to happen, and that itself could be a huge problem.

In other words, unless the Democrats win back the House, with enough margins to be indisputable even in MAGA-Federalist-Society-controlled courts, it's entirely possible that all Hell breaks loose.

[–] marine_mustang@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 days ago (2 children)

In a contingent election, control of the House doesn’t matter, as each state gets one vote regardless of House delegation size. Interestingly, a majority of the state’s House delegation has to vote for the same candidate in order for that candidate to be awarded the state’s vote, so if a state with 2 House reps had each voting for a different candidate, that state doesn’t get counted.

[–] solidgrue@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

That's why we're concerned about a gambit to disqualify or at least delay seating Representatives from contested districts past the 6th. There isn't clear guidance on this, and House Rules are House Business. It'll come down to the US House Parliamentarian, perhaps.

/maybe. Almost nobody knows this stuff
//Not OP. I'm the other one.
/// {edit) 'sup, grue?? We meet again.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Control matters insofar as the House can't deal with the matter at all until a Speaker is chosen, and the Republicans may very well be incapable (or unwilling) to choose one by Jan 6. (See second link in my previous comment.) Edit: and to be clear, this aspect of the issue would be a problem whether the Presidential election certification is contingent or not.

Also, if some Representatives for a given state are not yet seated because their election is still disputed, it could affect the partisan balance and therefore the decision of the state delegation (edit: if it's a contingent election).

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

Maybe they should settle House control with a 435- person limbo tournament.