Hmmm, has McCain said whether he'd commit suicide in the case of a 50-50 split?

It would probably be the Acting Vice President. The first person down the line of succession to fill the AVP role would be the Speaker of the House, in this case, Dennis Hastert.

(N.B: AVP refers to Acting Vice President, not Alien vs. Predator)

I'm thinking Cheney is the Predator, and Hastert the Alien, but that's just guesswork.

However, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate presides over the Senate when the VP is absent. The PPT of the Senate is currently Ted Stevens.

So either way, u iz teh scrood.

So wait, the PPT would get two votes?

Well, it all depends on whether Joe Lieberman is there to break ranks and cast his vote with the Republicans.

So wait, the PPT would get two votes?

I guess so... unless they go with the AVP method. Beats me.

In the case of a tie, victory would go the team with the most victories within their division. If the result is still a tie, then the one with the highest margin of victory would win. After that, strength of schedule.

Under the Constitution, ties in the Senate are broken by the Vice President or, in his absence, the PPT, who is chosen by the Senate.

If there is a vacancy in the office of Vice President, the 25th Amendment provides for the President to nominate a VP, who must be confirmed by the majority vote of both houses of Congress. There are no other Constitutional or statutory provisions proving for succession to the office of VP; the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 simply establishes a line of succession to the Presidency.

So if there is no VP, the PPT casts the tie-breaking votes in the Senate.

So wait, the PPT would get two votes?

Strictly speaking, the senator who is PPT gets one vote as senator; the PPT is another, separate office that acts in place of the Vice President and carries one vote only in the case of ties.

The standing rules of the Senate provide that the PPT holds the office "during the pleasure of the Senate and until another is elected or his term of office as a Senator expires."

So if no party has a majority, Stevens would remain PPT (unless a majority decided otherwise).

And then let's say a couple of months into the session, Cheney keels over at the breakfast table and dies.

On Christmas Day? I just know it would be on Christmas Day.

So what's the deal with the whole "Acting Vice President" thing?

Under the Constitution, ties in the Senate are broken by the Vice President or, in his absence, the PPT, who is chosen by the Senate.

Where in the Constitution does it say that ties in the Senate are broken by the PPT in the absence of the VP?

I contend that the Constitution does not say this at all. And since that's the whole question we're trying to answer, looks like it's back to the drawing board.

The same question was asked here, without a clear answer as far as I can tell.

The VP has only one role - breaking ties. Since the PPT is created solely in case the VP is absense, the only possible reason to do this is so that the PPT can take over the function normally asigned to the VP - breaking ties. I can't think of any other reason for there to be a PPT.

OK, Article 1, Section 3 does say:

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

So if you assume the PPT does everything the VP does when the VP is absent, then the PPT breaks ties, even though the Constitution does not say this explicitly.

Since the PPT is created solely in case the VP is absense, the only possible reason to do this is so that the PPT can take over the function normally asigned to the VP - breaking ties.

I was a bit confused on this, because it sounds like there is always a PPT, not like one is just chosen when the VP is absent. For example, Wikipedia calls Hastert the PPT right now, even though Cheney is still the VP:

The current President pro tempore of the Senate is Ted Stevens, a Republican from Alaska, who has held the office since January 3, 2003.

What's up with that? I guess they just mean he is the guy who would become PPT, if Cheney kicks it?

The only way for this to be settled is by a 50 on 50 match of Buzkashi, on the Mall, using Cheney.

Oh. It's a trick question.

If Cheney keeled over, George wouldn't know it was time to appoint someone controversial.

The VP is often absent from the chamber; I seem to recall reading that Cheney shows up very rarely, presumably since he's busy running American foreign policy. Oddly, the PPT doesn't preside over sessions of the Senate with any great regularity either--the duty is often handed off to junior members who need some face time, or a Senator who has some connection to pending legislation. I've already seen NC's junior empty suit, Richard Burr, presiding over a vote in a news clip.

My understanding is that the PPT is traditionally the longest-serving member of the majority party, which is how Strom Thurmond got to spend several years near the top of the line of succession. Unless there's also a tradition of not letting the same Senator hold the office twice, a Democratic majority would bring back Robert Byrd.

By the way, I can't possibly imagine that the PPT gets 2 votes--especially not on such an important matter. I'm pretty sure a tie would swiftly be settled by old-fashioned horse-trading; but the obvious way to avoid it is to appoint a sitting member of the Senate and cut the body to an odd number. Actually the appointee would probably still get to vote, but Senators are famously reluctant to vote down their own members on appointments.

I am taking this way too seriously.

appoint a sitting member of the Senate

Like this guy, maybe. Multiple birds, single stone.

Or,

but Senators are famously reluctant to vote down their own members

Heh heh. Hehehehehehehe.

"Member."

Voting down your member is a lot like pissing up a rope.

So, what does "pro tempore" mean in English?

Researching this topic, I ran accross this, which I did not know:

The Constitution also prohibits electors from voting for both a Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate from the same state as themselves. In theory, this might deny a Vice Presidential candidate with the most electoral votes the absolute majority required to secure election, even if the Presidential candidate is elected, and place the Vice Presidential election in the hands of the Senate. In practice, this requirement is easily circumvented by having the candidate for Vice President change the state of residency as was done by Dick Cheney, who changed his legal residency from Texas to Wyoming, his original homestate, in order to run for election as Vice President alongside George W. Bush, who was then the governor of Texas.

My new guess is that in the even of a 50-50 tie, they vote again and again until the tie breaks. (similar to the 36 votes needed to break the tie b/w Aaron Burr and T. Jefferson)

answered my own question: "pro tempore" means "for the time being." After Wikipedia didn't include a translation, I suspected that they were just making that latin up.

Whoops, a few comments above, I meant to write "calls Stevens the PPT", not "calls Hastert the PPT".

Rah's first two paragraphs are correct (I don't know enough to comment on his third). There's always a PPT, who is traditionally the most senior member of the majority party. His main duty, delegated from the VP, is to preside over the proceedings. He in turn delegates that duty to other senators, who rotate, so at any given time the person in the chair is almost certainly not going to be the PPT. If you watch C-SPAN, you'll notice that senators address their floor speeches to "Mr. President"; this is the PPT, who is usually not the person they are actually looking at and speaking to.

AVP seems to be a defunct office, judging from that Wikipedia page, which says that the Presidential Succession Act of 1886 rendered it obsolete.

There always has to be a presiding officer of the Senate; by virtue of the Constitution, this is the VP's job whenever he wishes to exercise it. The first VP, John Adams, actively presided over the first Senate. Nowadays the VP only shows up when he thinks there might be a tie vote on a measure that he wants to pass (a tied vote will defeat a measure, and the Pres. retains a veto if it otherwise squeaks through), or for joint sessions of Congress.

The PPT is the Senate's formally designated presiding officer to take on the VP's role as "President of the Senate" when the VP doesn't show up; day to day the presiding job is usually delegated to junior senators.

So if you assume the PPT does everything the VP does when the VP is absent, then the PPT breaks ties, even though the Constitution does not say this explicitly.

I think this would be the case, but it doesn't seem to have been tested. An alternative reading is that since the language in Article I Section 3 Clause 4 "but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided" refers not to the role of President but to the Vice President, that the extra vote is available only if the VP is acting as President of the Senate, and not to any PPT. I suppose that to avoid getting the courts involved the US President has always felt it better to send the VP over, just to make sure.

AVP seems to be a defunct office, judging from that Wikipedia page, which says that the Presidential Succession Act of 1886 rendered it obsolete.

It doesn't say that at all. In fact, it lists the most recent AVP as Carl Albert, who was AVP twice, the last time being from August 9 to December 19, 1974.

Look closer:

(De Facto Vice President) Although after the the Presidential Succession Act of 1886 which designated the Secretary of State as next in line to the presidency after the Vice President made the office of Acting Vice President obsolete it is still worth noting for the sake of knowledge, who the de facto Vice Presidents were who would have become President had that office become vacant. After the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the Speaker of the House became next in line.

My new question is what happens in the case of a tie regular vote when the VP is not there to break it? Does the Senator acting as PPT get two votes in that case?

My new answer to my new question:

A casting vote is really not necessary. The Senate can always arrive at a decision. This is because, according to Senate rules, a tie vote is the same as a "no" vote--a decision has been reached. The president of the Senate has the power to vote "yes" or "no" when there is a tie vote. However, it is only the "yes" vote that can change the result of the tie.

I suppose this would apply to a vote over the appointment of a VP?

I think I totally solved this. Where's my prize?

It's in apostropher's pants, Michael.

I was expecting something bigger.

Size queen.

It would probably be the Acting Vice President. The first person down the line of succession to fill the AVP role would be the Speaker of the House, in this case, Dennis Hastert.

(N.B: AVP refers to Acting Vice President, not Alien vs. Predator)

"Whoever wins, we lose."

So let me summarize what I think I read, as I'm doing a paper on Historical Powers of the President of the Senate. If the VP is not there, the PPT can theoretically cast the tie breaking vote, though it hasn't been tested to determine a) If the PPT can actually make the vote in his assumption role, and b) If he's part of the divide, is the then disqualified from the vote providing that "a", assuming POS power is valid to make the tie vote. If I got this right, I bet it would go to the Supreme Court pronto.