State Representative Alan Seabaugh explains why he thinks that, when all the election challenges are settled, the Electoral College will, as always, pick the next President of the United States.

Seabaugh disagrees with some interpretations of the Constitution that say that, should election challenges in a number of states remain unsettled, the Supreme Court would send the final choice to the House of Representatives.

"The stage we're at right now is the challenge for certification, he says, "How are we going to do the recounts? Which ballots are going to be counted?"

And what if, at the time mandated by law, different states cannot certify their Electoral College voters? "That's the question we've never dealt with," he says, "People keep talking about this going to the House of Representatives, but I don't think that's where we're going on this. Every election that has gone to the House of Representatives has gone there because there were more than two candidates and no one got an Electoral College majority.

"The Constitution says that each state gets to determine the manner in which its electors are appointed...and the winner of the Presidency is the candidate who gets the majority of those appointed electors. There remains the possibility that a state like Pennsylvania, where the election is so messed up, will give the Supreme Court three options. They can certify the results, it can order a recount, or it can say, your election is so fraught with fraud that a determination cannot be made. That's the scenario where, I think, no electors are appointed from that state.

"The Constitution does not say you have to have 270 (Electoral College votes)," Seabaugh says, wrapping up his point, "That is not in the Constitution. It does not say you have to have a majority of the possible electors. It says a majority of the electors appointed. Then, if the Court rules that Pennsylvania's election was so messed up they can't appoint electors, then the (Electoral College) falls."