Connect with us

World

What happens if there’s a tie in the US presidential election?

Published

on

What happens if there’s a tie in the US presidential election?

A constitutional amendment more than two centuries old determines the choice of winner in case of a draw.

ADVERTISEMENT

Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are fighting down to the last vote to gain the upper hand in tomorrow’s election. There’s a remote possibility that the US poll could end in a draw, however.

This concerns the machinery of the US Electoral College, the winner-takes-all system that determines which presidential candidate will win the White House.

The Electoral College comprises 538 votes, distributed in varying proportions among the fifty states plus the District of Columbia. A tie between two presidential candidates is therefore theoretically possible.

Harris and Trump could each receive 269 electoral votes, resulting in a complete draw scenario, with both candidates unable to achieve the majority of electoral votes required to become president.

Similar stalemates have occurred twice in US history, in 1800 and 1824.

Advertisement

What happened when there was a tie in the past?

In the 1800 election, Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans defeated the incumbent Federalist President John Adams.

At that time, presidential candidates had a “running mate” from a different state, similar to today’s candidates for vice president. The electors had to cast two votes each: the candidate with the most votes would become president, while the candidate with the second-most votes would become vice president.

However, the Democratic-Republicans did not coordinate well, resulting in their candidate for president (Jefferson) receiving the same number of votes as their candidate for vice president (Aaron Burr).

The election was therefore decided by the House of Representatives using a one-state, one-vote rule after a long deadlock that nearly resulted in a military confrontation, as Sanford Levinson, a professor at the University of Texas Law School, has noted.

For this reason, the 12th Amendment was introduced, which still regulates the election of the US president. It clarifies that electors “shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice President,” to avoid any possible tie between candidates from the same party.

Advertisement

However, there remains the possibility that no candidate receives a majority of the total number of electors appointed—currently, that crucial threshold is 270.

This actually happened in 1824, when Andrew Jackson received 99 votes, John Quincy Adams 84, William Crawford 41, and Henry Clay 37. All of these candidates were from the same Democratic-Republican political party, which was split into regional factions.

The 12th Amendment states that in such cases, the House of Representatives shall immediately choose the president by ballot from the top three choices of the electors. Votes are taken by state, with each state having one vote and a simple majority required.

This means that Wyoming, the smallest state in the US with fewer than 600,000 people, would have the same say in choosing a new president as California, which has almost 40 million residents (even though Wyoming appoints only three electors and California 54).

Additionally, the choice of the new president would depend on the composition of the House of Representatives, which is set to be voted on in parallel with the presidential elections.

Advertisement
ADVERTISEMENT

How likely is a tie?

While a tie is unlikely, it is still a possibility to consider, with various scenarios outlined by the website 270toWin.

One scenario is that Trump wins Pennsylvania and Georgia, while Harris secures victories in Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, Nevada, and one electoral vote in Nebraska, which alongside Maine is the only state that splits its allocation of electors.

Another scenario, even more unlikely, is that Harris wins all the states Biden won, plus North Carolina, which current polls indicate could go to Republicans. If Trump then reclaims Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and also wins Nevada for the first time, the outcome would be a 269-269 tie.

This would trigger a “contingent election,” with the House of Representatives tasked with deciding the US president for the first time in two centuries, requiring a simple majority of 26 states to elect the new commander-in-chief.

ADVERTISEMENT

With the country sharply divided, newly sworn-in US congress members would face immense pressure and, in some cases, might have to choose between backing their party candidate or the one who received the most popular votes in their own state (there is no requirement for state delegations to honour the winner of their state’s vote).

This situation would likely unfold on 6 January, right after Congress determines that no candidate has a majority, according to an analysis by the Congressional Research Service.

Even more surprisingly, the tie scenario could lead to cohabitation between a Republican president and a Democratic vice president or vice versa.

Advertisement

Indeed, according to the 12th Amendment, in the event of no majority, the US vice president is chosen by the Senate from the two candidates with the highest number of electoral votes, with each senator entitled to one vote (the US Senate has 100 members, with each state electing two).

ADVERTISEMENT

Finally, the Senate could select a vice president even if the House is deadlocked in the election of the president. So, if a president is not selected by Inauguration Day, 2o January, the newly chosen vice president would serve as acting president. This is a scenario that no one in the US can envision as of today.

World

Meta appeals landmark jury verdict that found it to blame for social media addiction for young users

Published

on

Meta appeals landmark jury verdict that found it to blame for social media addiction for young users

Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, has appealed the verdict of a landmark social media addiction lawsuit in Los Angeles, challenging the jury’s determination that the company designed its platforms to hook young users without concern for their well-being.

Lawyers representing Meta filed a notice of appeal Tuesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The lawyers will provide their arguments related to the appeal in subsequent court filings.

The case centered on a 20-year-old woman who said she became addicted to social media as a child and that it worsened her mental health struggles. The jury found that negligence by both Meta and Google-owned YouTube, which was also a defendant in the case, was a substantial factor in causing harm to the young woman, identified in court only by her initials, KGM, and her first name, Kaley.

The jury awarded her $3 million in damages and recommended an additional $3 million in punitive damages. Her lead attorney, Mark Lanier, said in a statement Friday that the legal team is expecting the appellate court to “continue the careful application of the law to this case, affirming the verdict of the trial court.”

A notice of appeal starts what can be a lengthy process. A Meta spokesperson provided a statement Friday that they also gave when the jury returned the verdict in March, saying that teen mental health is “profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app.”

Advertisement

José Castañeda, a spokesperson for Google, said in a statement Friday that YouTube plans to appeal and that “these are standard motions for this case to move forward.”

Meta and Google had each filed post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict — a routinely filed motion by defense lawyers asking a judge to toss out the jury’s verdict — and for a new trial. The trial judge, Carolyn B. Kuhl, denied those motions in early June.

Tech companies like Meta and YouTube are shielded from legal responsibility for content posted by third parties, based on Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. To get around those protections, the plaintiffs focused on the design features of the platforms like “infinite scroll,” or the endless nature of feeds on the platforms, and autoplay functions.

Questions about encroaching into content-related territory were the subject of many objections from the defendants throughout the five-week trial.

The verdict in this case came during a time of legal woes for Meta. A jury in New Mexico returned a verdict finding that Meta’s platforms harm children’s mental health and safety just one day before the California jury reached its decision. The New Mexico jury, siding with state prosecutors who brought the case, landed on a penalty of $375 million. Meta has said the company disagrees with the verdict and will also appeal in that case.

Advertisement

“We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online,” a Meta spokesperson said in a statement at the time of the verdicts and again on Friday.

Kaley’s case was a first-of-its-kind lawsuit, and the verdict could influence the outcome of thousands of similar lawsuits accusing social media companies of deliberately causing harm. TikTok and Snapchat parent company Snap Inc. were also initially named as defendants in the case, but each settled for undisclosed sums before the trial began.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

Israel signals readiness for another Iran strike as Trump declares ceasefire over

Published

on

Israel signals readiness for another Iran strike as Trump declares ceasefire over

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Israel’s leaders are publicly signaling that their country is prepared to strike Iran for a third time, while a U.S. official tells Fox News Digital that Washington remains closely coordinated with Jerusalem. 

“The IDF is on high alert and prepared to resume the campaign, regain air superiority, and carry out an independent Israeli strike against Iran to eliminate threats — even for a third time,” Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Minister Israel Katz said Thursday at a graduation ceremony for the Israeli Air Force’s newest pilots.

“If we have to return, we will return with even greater force,” Katz added.

ISRAEL DEFENSE CHIEF WARNS STRIKES ON IRAN COULD RESUME SOON, SIGNALS CAMPAIGN NOT OVER

Advertisement

U.S. Central Command shared this footage in a July 8, 2026, press release about strikes against Iran.  (CENTCOM)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also warned Thursday that Israel’s campaign against Iran was not finished and said Tehran would not be permitted to obtain a nuclear weapon, regardless of any agreement reached with Washington.

“The war has not yet ended,” Netanyahu said at the air force ceremony. “Alongside the old challenges, new challenges are emerging. Axes are falling, and axes are rising. We are paying attention to this. We are prepared for every scenario.”

Two Israeli sources told CNN Friday that the Trump administration does not currently want Israel to participate in the latest U.S. strikes against Iran. 

“Netanyahu would really want to join the U.S. strikes, but the U.S. doesn’t want Israel involved at the moment,” one of the sources told CNN.

Advertisement

A U.S. official denied the report, telling Fox News Digital, “This is fake news. The United States has a strong relationship with Israel, which contributed to the resounding success of Operation Midnight Hammer and Operation Epic Fury. We remain in close coordination with our Israeli partners.”

Israel first launched a major campaign against Iran in June 2025, with the United States later joining the fighting by striking the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear facilities. On Feb. 28, the two allies launched a new, coordinated military campaign against Iran.

While Israeli leaders are openly presenting the military as ready for another campaign, some Israeli officials and analysts say there is little appetite for renewed fighting unless it produces a clear strategic result.

The public warnings may overstate Israel’s desire to reenter the fighting, said Israeli analyst and journalist for Israeli newspaper Yedioth Aharonoth, Nadav Eyal. 

“On the record, Israel is signaling that it is prepared and even eager to strike Iran. But off the record, sources are saying that it is anything but that,” Eyal told Fox News Digital. “The reason is clear: Any Israeli strike in Iran will lead to Iranian ballistic missile attacks against Israel.”

Advertisement

US CLAWS BACK KEY CONCESSION TO IRAN AFTER FRESH ATTACKS ON COMMERCIAL SHIPS IN STRAIT OF HORMUZ

Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, from left, US President Donald Trump and US Vice President JD Vance during a bilateral meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Feb. 4, 2025. Trump insisted Egypt and Jordan will take in Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, dismissing the countries’ refusal to accept people from the war-shattered territory. Photographer: Shawn Thew/EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images (Getty Images)

Eyal said the domestic political consequences could make Netanyahu reluctant to begin another round of fighting, particularly as Israel approaches another election.

“If these strikes are meant to provide meaningful, strategic change, it is something the prime minister can sell to the public,” Eyal said. “But if the intention is only to use Israel as leverage, why should Israelis again experience a couple of weeks or more of sitting in safe rooms and losing their summer vacations, children’s day camps and summer camps? That could play out badly for the prime minister politically.”

“The truth is that Israel was not really enthusiastic about another strike,” he added. “That doesn’t mean it is not going to happen. If President Trump demands that Netanyahu join, it is very hard to see the Israelis saying no. But right now, I don’t see any passion for it.”

Advertisement

The diplomatic outreach continued even as Trump declared that the ceasefire with Iran was over.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran has asked us to continue ‘talks.’ We have agreed to do so, but the United States has stated to them, in no uncertain terms, that the Cease Fire is OVER!” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.

A source with knowledge of the situation told Fox News that Qatari negotiators have traveled to Iran, in coordination with the United States, to meet with Iranian officials in an effort to de-escalate the situation and create the conditions for negotiations to resume.

On Thursday, Netanyahu and Trump spoke by phone, according to the Israeli prime minister’s office, which said the two agreed to continue coordinating across several regional fronts. Trump briefed Netanyahu on American operations in the Gulf, the statement said.

NETANYAHU REJECTS REPORTS OF A RIFT WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, SAYS THE TWO REMAIN ALIGNED ON IRAN

Advertisement

A satellite image shows damage at the control tower in the port of Chabahar, Iran, July 9, 2026, after the U.S. military said July 8, 2026, it launched fresh strikes on Iran to keep the Strait of Hormuz open to shipping. ( 2026 PLANET LABS PBC/Handout via Reuters)

The military warnings came as the Wall Street Journal reported Friday that Israel had provided the United States with intelligence about what is described as a fresh Iranian plot to assassinate Trump.

The developments follow renewed attacks on commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, where U.S. naval officials said the maritime threat remained “severe.” U.S. Naval Forces Central Command reminded commercial vessels Friday that an expanded southern route through the strait remained open and that no controlling authority could require ships to pay a fee for passage.

A U.S. official told Fox News on background that Iran’s attacks against commercial vessels were “acts of terrorism” and constituted failed performance under the memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran.

“The United States is still committed to finding a resolution, and technical talks continue,” the official said. “Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon.”

Advertisement

Brig. Gen. Yossi Kuperwasser, a former senior Israeli military intelligence officer who now heads the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, said Israel had never regarded the memorandum as an adequate guarantee.

“From Israel’s perspective, the MOU was never a good deal,” Kuperwasser told Fox News Digital, speaking of the memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Iran. 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

CENTCOM shared footage of strikes against airplanes amid Iran war (U.S. Central Command on X)

“Israel should be on high alert, ready to face an Iranian attack and prepared to strike back if necessary,” he added.

Advertisement

For now, Israel’s leaders appear to be leaving Iran — and Washington — with little doubt that they are prepared to act. Whether the United States allows Israel to join the renewed campaign, however, could determine whether the latest confrontation remains limited or develops into another full-scale regional war.

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment. 

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

Belgium to introduce new road tax in 2027, even for transiting drivers

Published

on

Belgium to introduce new road tax in 2027, even for transiting drivers

Published on Updated

Belgium’s three regions announced on Friday that they would introduce a road tax next year that foreign drivers transiting the country would also have to pay.

ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT

The country does not currently charge drivers to use its highways and the issue of introducing some form of payment has been debated for years.

Advertisement

“Everyone who uses our roads must contribute fairly to their maintenance,” said the transport minister for the southern Wallonia region, François Desquesnes.

Starting on 1 May 2027 drivers will need to register their vehicle and pay the road tax, with day passes available for drivers driving across the country.

An annual pass for a zero-emission car will cost €90 and up to €125 for higher polluting vehicles.

Road cameras that catch cars that haven’t paid for a pass will incur a fine of €70.

In Belgium, the individual regions are responsible for maintaining roads and motorways.

Advertisement

Currently, drivers can use almost all highways toll-free but the possibility of an introducing a charge has been under discussion for several years.

The revenue would be used for the operation and maintenance of the road network.

The proposed toll still needs final approval from the regions and European authorities.

According to the chairman of the liberal-conservative MR party, the government intends to offset the new toll by lowering other taxes for Belgians.

Advertisement

Additional sources • AFP

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending