I may be a little confused about the process but I thought that if there was a tie in the electoral vote the House of Representatives will, not might, choose the next President. Reuters uses the phrase "could mean that the House of Representatives would choose the next President" as if it is optional.
Second, in the event of a tie and the House chooses the President and the Senate chooses the Vice President, is that House and Senate as they are on Nov 1 before the election, or on Nov 3 after the election?
The House would choose. The reason they say "could" is probably because after we all realize there was a tie on Nov 2, the electors could be persuaded to change their vote when they meet on Dec 13.
Second, in the event of a tie and the House chooses the President and the Senate chooses the Vice President, is that House and Senate as they are on Nov 1 before the election, or on Nov 3 after the election?
It would be the new Congress. They will meet on Jan 6 to count the electoral votes, and in the event of a tie, would immediately start balloting to decide the winner.
"I may be a little confused about the process but I thought that if there was a tie in the electoral vote the House of Representatives will, not might, choose the next President. Reuters uses the phrase "could mean that the House of Representatives would choose the next President" as if it is optional."
You have it correct, 'shall' is the operative word, as it is the House of Representatives, voting by State delegations who elect the President when there is no electoral college majority. This of course includes ties... The United States Senate votes as individuals for the Vice-President, with the current Vice-President(Cheney) breaking any ties in the Senate votes.
Here is how the House side of the tie-breaking procedure would work:
1.) The District of Columbia gets three electoral votes via the 23rd Amendment, but does not get a second bite at the apple when any Presidential election has to go to the House for resolution, as ONLY States voting as Delegations have a say at that point. It will take a majority of the 50 States voting as Delegations to elect a President. Currently that means 26 out of 50 States.
2.) Democrats cannot stall with the lack of a 'Quorum' two reasons. The first is that it would only take ONE Republican present to vote for his State if all the Democrats sat out the special session. In the current House of the 108th Congress there are 7 States which have NO Republican Representatives and there are 8 States with NO Democrats as Representatives. To prevent a quorum in this situation for the next House in the 109th Congress, there would have to be 26 State delegations with no Republicans, and if that condition were met, then the Democrats would control enough delegations to elect their own candidate. Secondly, there is NO other business before the House but electing a President. No other business may be taken up until there is a new President. I don't think that anyone would try to out wait the American public in that case.
3.) If a State delegation is 'tied', then it just votes 'present' during any Presidential voting in the House.
4.) The current State delegation breakdown is 30 Republican, 15 Democrat, 1 Socialist and 4 'Tied' State delegations. Furthermore, there are 11 of those (30) State delegations controlled by Republicans by a one vote margin. There fact is that 4 of those 11 States only have ONE vote in the House anyway due to their small population. The Democrats control 6 State delegations by a margin of 1 vote, but 3 of those are States with only ONE vote in the House due to their small population.
5.) The current House of the 108th Congress would NOT be the one to witness the count the Electoral College votes for President, and if no majority was to be had then vote on a new President by State delegation. That duty would belong only to the newly elected House of the 109th Congress which is seated in January 6th of 2005.
Below is a data table for the current House of the 108th Congress as of the date of this post. I would expect that Texas would move from a 'tie' to solid Republican, for a new total of 31 Republican delegations in the 109th Congress. There may be some other shifts in the composition of some other State delegations, but I do not see the House of the 109th Congress having any fewer than the necessary 26 delegations composing the majority necessary to re-elect President Bush if the House would have to make the choice. This table is current as of the data and time of this post, and includes the recent shift of a Louisiana Representative from the Democrats to Republicans.
US House - 108th Congress
by State
by Delegations
Source: Office of the Clerk, US House of Representatives OFFICIAL LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES of the UNITED STATES as of September 30, 2004.
So, to summarize, the current breakdown in the 108th Congress is as follows:
30 State Delegations - Republican 15 State Delegations - Democrat 1 State Delegation - Socialist (would vote for Democrat) 4 State Delegations - Tied between Republican and Democrat
These are the current numbers for the 108th Congress, but it will be the newly elected 109th Congress which would elect the President if the job fell in their laps...
The currently 'tied' States are Minnesota, Mississippi, Texas and Wisconsin. Texas is currently tied at 16-16, but by the 109th Congress which is seated in January of 2005, the Republicans should have at least 31 State Delegations since the Texas re-districting will finally have more Republicans than Democrats representing Texas. These numbers in the House of Representatives will take care of any potential business that the Electoral College would throw their way for the selection of President, which means that Bush would be re-elected, probably by 31 (Bush) to 16 (Kerry), with 3 votes present.
Hope this helps...
dvwjr