Death of Presidential Nominee

S

SamHouston

New member
John McCain just made a surprise visit to Baghdad and got me wondering.

Suppose Nov 1 of this year someone takes out or the nominee from one of the parties is hit by a Mack truck and loses their life. Is there a procedure for temporarily delaying the presidential election? Would the parties elect a candidate where there were no clear 2nd choice ?
 
NO

the short answer.

McCain for example is actually not on the ballot at this point in time. He probably will be but he could be preempted. Once it get to the actual ballot there will be more candidates listed than just one Democrat and one Republican. There will be as many as eight or more. Some you may not have heard of until you read the ballot. Should one of the major candidates die I would expect a write-in campaign being pushed by the party.
 
How about somebody producing the actual statutes covering this contingency? I'm absolutely sure that this has been addressed legislatively.
 
There is this for what it's worth.

http://slate.msn.com/?id=91839

I think the basic answer is if it's close to or just past November, then there is not enough time to re-elect a new candidate. There is really no good contingency plan at this time.

Er, um, the last time I looked we were voting for Electors, not for presidents. The electors vote for president.
Click to expand...

Correct, but past the November time frame this could still be a big mess.
 
No clear answer

Madmag, thanks for the article. Thought provoking & appears that we have several holes in the system that need to be filled.

Suppose that Smith is running for president with Jones as his vice-presidential running mate. If Smith dies in early November, will a vote for the Smith-Jones ticket be counted as, in effect, a vote for Jones as president? Under current statutes, precedents, and party policies, the issue is far from clear—but voters are entitled to know the answers before they cast their votes.
Click to expand...

With all the bickering within and between parties, one can only imagine the legal maneuvering these scenarios could create.

Back to the Mack truck hitting the candidate.... I understand Bill C. just recieved his commercial license. Do you think .... ?
 
Back to the Mack truck hitting the candidate.... I understand Bill C. just received his commercial license. Do you think .... ?
Click to expand...

I think Bill would have a hard time deciding on who to aim the bull dog at...Hillary, or Obama. Bill would be thinking....ah, living at home alone. No one to tell me what to do. Hot tub full of hot babes.....well you guess on his decision.:D
 
C'mon guys, suggesting violence against a presidential candidate, even in jest, doesn't meet the standards of decorum.
 
Seriously speaking though, I have weighed my opinions of Hillary, and DO honestly believe she would be capable of "offing" a compeditor to gain position and power--maybe not necessarily during the presidential race, but I wouldn't put it passed her. She just has that 'elitist', self-servancy glow about her that I really don't trust a single thing about her. If by some chance someone DOES have something strange happen to them, she's got my bet as the instigator.
 
Keeping the thread on track

Let's stick with McCain having a massive stroke the day before or the week after the elections (prior to being sworn in office). His death would create one set of problems, laying in bed paralyzed and incapacitated would be another.

Prior to the election there is no method to substitute for the ticket. Would it be better to let the people choose another candidate like Romney / Richardson than having a VP candidate like Chaney step up and take over the presidential spot ?

Does not appear to be a clear answer yet very possible with any candidate over 50. Republicans file suit to delay elections 60 days, Democrats file to continue election as required by law. Does the SCOTUS step in on an emergency ruling?
 
I can see the headline now

"McCain suffers stroke, war hero tragically passes away; Ron Paul moves to first place in polls."
in case anyone's wondering, that was a good-natured jab at fellow RP fanatics, not an attempt to incite an argument or derail the thread =P


Seriously, though...since both parties are technically private entities don't they have the ability to simply choose whoever they want?
 
If they are private entities they are long overdue to be prosecuted out of existance under antitrust laws and owe at least several decades in back taxes...which by that also has them under racketeering.
 
Er, um, the last time I looked we were voting for Electors, not for presidents. The electors vote for president.
Click to expand...

Correct and I think it was not until 1980 or later that here in SC did they quit listing the actual eletors on the ballot instead of the cantidate. It may be all states now that electors are required to cast their ballot for the pledged cantidate but they are required to by the party rather than ny actual law which can be easil;y circumvented. If a cantidate were to die shortly before the election or between the election and the electoral college voting there would be a lot of confusion but not a lot of legal problems. I do not know what the case would be if an elected cantidate died between the time the electoral college met and the inauguration but I am sure some legal scholar could tell us.

Note there have been several elections including one recently where a congressional cantidate died shortly before the election but remained on the ballot and was elected.
 
John McCain just made a surprise visit to Baghdad and got me wondering.
Click to expand...

Walking around Baghdad is just like walking around Indiana. Well, except a lot more flak jackets and flinching at loud noises ;)

Now, hasn't this been covered in other elections? Didn't AG Ashcroft lose to a dead man in 2000(CNN Archives here)? Does the position of president make a difference? Granted, there is a difference appointment process for Senators, but wouldn't the regular line of secession take place?
 
Since everything posted here, including my posts, are nothing more than speculation, I'll see if I can get an answer from somebody who's actually studied Constitutional Law in law school! :D

The Ashcroft election has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, from a Constitutional standpoint. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top