12th Amendment Gambit....

Going to correct/clarify a few things in this thread, from the bottom up, so hopefully I don't miss anything.

Right. States can replace electors if they vote incorrectly (and thus replace the vote), but they don't have to. Only 15 states do so. An additional several will fine or jail electors for voting incorrectly, but don't replace them with an alternate for the official vote, so the faithless vote stands.

It's the new Congress that selects the President, not the old one. That's a statute, not a rule*.

What is a rule, however, is how the delegations choose to vote. Currently, it's by majority. However a House majority (read: the Democrats) could change that at any time so that only unanimous delegation votes count, and that the rest must be vote as "divided", which doesn't count towards the 26. Which states' populations voted for Biden or Trump has no bearing. It's strictly up to the House members how to vote towards their state's delegation vote.

*potentially this could be changed, but it would take a monumental act of stupidity on Trump's part to pass it, as the Dems would just change the delegation vote counting rule, which would cause a deadlock. This would cause a VP Pence who would take over the duties of the President as per 12th amendment (Dems in the Senate could boycott the vote - a 12th amendment quorum is ⅔ of the whole number of Senators, but then they'd never be able to legislate anything), who would then nominate his own Vice President, who would have to be approved by a majority of both Houses -- this would almost certainly have to be a conservative Democrat or moderate Republican, someone like Joe Manchin (except not him, because Dems would never agree to let Republicans gain another seat in the Senate) or Mitt Romney. That person would be booted if the House ever did agree on a President.

Not unless Sanders or Jorgensen get an electoral vote from a faithless elector. The House can only consider the top 3 electoral vote getters, but the way it's worded, if there were a tie for 3rd place, the House could consider anyone who met that tie. So if it were 268-267-1-1-1, the House could consider all 5 electoral vote recipients. But if it were 268-267-2-1, then they could only consider the top 3. The way it's worded is "... then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President". Not clear to me whether that means that if it were 266-266-2-2-1-1 they could consider all 6 candidates, since there are only 3 numbers, or if they can only consider the first four. That might be a question for SCOTUS.

It's almost certain that states would vote down party lines (but see above). I don't think Dems have a majority of the delegation (let alone a unanimous delegation) in any state Trump won. 2010 gerrymandering saw to that. I mean, it's possible but I think the odds of that are between winning the lottery, and a pig being born with a genetic mutation for functional wings.

At any rate, I don't think this is going to matter. Despite Trump's protestations, there's no actual evidence of fraud. At worst, there will be more audits, like in Michigan. The votes will be certified, the regular electors appointed. The damage Trump is doing is long-term, for cases where the election is much closer.