The thread for far-fetched election questions

[manhattan]

Hi. This is the thread for you to post your far-fetched "Well, could this happen?" election questions. Keeping them in one place will prevent GQ from becomeing a single-issue forum.

Far-fetched election questions posted as their own thread will be closed without comment. So please, save yourself the effort of typing twice, and place them here.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[manhattan]

Since elucidator got his in under the wire, I'm reproducing it here rather than making him/her do it"

Scenario:

The Forces of Light prevail over the Towers of Mordor, Gore is elected "President".

But what about the Sentate? Ahh, but the Senate, which is likely to be tied or very close. (Can you hear Jesse Helms heartbeat? Neither can he.)

If Gore wins, Lieberman resigns his seat, the Governor of his (R) state appoints a Republican. Senate becomes Republican, +1. (Assuming that WA recount breaks their way)

But what if Lieberman decides not to resign his Senate seat? What if he elects (snicker) to run but not serve? Then he remains in the Senate, one more Democratic vote! In case of a tie in the Senate, he might have cast the tie-breaking vote. If he remains a Senator, the Dems get his vote and still get to appoint the Vice President for the tie-breaker.

But who! Who might they choose for such a task! Who has the experience, the political savvy, the stature, the popularity, the chutzpah?

Why, Bill!! Who else could get away with it?

He cannot serve more than two terms as President. Constitution doesn't say that he can't serve as Vice-President.

Is this scenario possible? Is it any less likely than the daily news?

[BobT]

Try looking here for info on that topic:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=33709

Or here

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=32574

[Sofa King]

Okay, I've got one. Let's say that the election gets punted to Congress and they can't decide on a candidate. Noon on Jan. 20 rolls around. The office of President descends to Dennis Hastert, but Hastert doesn't want the job because he cannot return to his position as Speaker. So he hands off the ball to Stom Thurmond, fifty-two years after running for president the first time.

But... doesn't the position of President automatically devolve to Hastert? Even if he waves off, doesn't he wave off as president? And doesn't that mean he's gotta pack his bags for Illinois, now an ex-president and ex-speaker?

[Montfort]

Originally posted by Sofa King
But... doesn't the position of President automatically devolve to Hastert? Even if he waves off, doesn't he wave off as president? And doesn't that mean he's gotta pack his bags for Illinois, now an ex-president and ex-speaker?
Hastert wouldn't be president unless he's sworn in as such. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a Bible, you know the drill. Just like how Madeleine Albright wouldn't have to resign since she's not becoming President, Hastert keeps his cushy office in the Capitol.

(Side question: what would VP-elect Lieberman, if it comes to that, swear on? A Torah?)

[peace]

What if, after all recounts, some Florida electors vote against "the will of the people"? Will Al challege it?

[Montfort]

He has absolutely no recourse to challenge the vote of the Electoral College in Florida, as well as in twenty or so other states. He may not like it, but that's the way that it will go.

Dubya might whine about it, though...

[friedo]

Originally posted by peace
What if, after all recounts, some Florida electors vote against "the will of the people"? Will Al challege it?

He might, but once the electors do their thing, it ceases to be a state issue, which means a trial in federal court (actually, doesn't the SC have original jurisdiction in things like this?) and they will find no Constitutional basis for contesting rogue electoral votes.

[BobT]

Electoral votes are counted by the Congress and the Congress has explicit rules on how to handle challenged votes. There has to be an objection raised by at least one member of the House and from the Senate. Then each body meets separately to come to a conclusion. Only if both the House and Senate vote to reject a return, is it tossed out.

It's 3 U.S.C. 15

You can read all the gory details at
http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/elctcoll/provis.html

[Dignan]

OK, this was from a thread that I'd started, it ended up getting closed by manhattan and he told me to move it here, I can see how I should have known that, considering this thread wasn't even on the same page when I made my thread. I guess this thread has been brought to you by manhattan thanks a lot :), here it is:

OK, I don't actually want to know who has the better poker face, but it might come in handy if there were a tie in New Mexico. At least that is what I've been told. A friend of mine said that if Florida just happened to go to Gore, and the Wisconsin recounted and went for Bush along with Oregon, and then there was a tie for the election in New Mexico they'd have to break the tie by playing one hand of 5 stud poker. I was kind of surprised, I figure it's just one of those old stupid laws that never got taken off the books. Of course it's all hypothetical anyway, no, not because it's impossible for all those states to change, lord knows that has happened enough, the poker match wouldn't ever take place because the two sides would never be able to agree on a dealer.

While I got you here, anyone think Jim Lehrer would look kind of dignified with a visor?

[BobT]

They don't have to play poker in New Mexico in the event of a tie. They have also had coin flips. You could also just draw a name out of a hat.

If a dealer was needed, presumably some New Mexico official would do it and nobody would get a chance to complain.

[starfish]

Dignan

Most localities settle tie elections by lot [pick a straw] or by chance [pick a card]. AFAIK they don't use games of skill. Though it would be interesting if they had a duel.

[Sofa King]

Montfort, in regard to my earlier post, I believe the Senate agrees with you (http://www.senate.gov/learning/min_2j.html):

"Today, we understand that Taylor automatically became president on the fourth and could have begun to execute the duties of his office after taking the oath privately."

So Hastert just has to refuse to take the oath. But if I were a lawyer, I would argue, "automatically became president, refused to execute." That's a much finer point.

[note: I fixed the link. -manhattan]


[Edited by manhattan on 11-17-2000 at 08:58 AM]

[capacitor]

Frankly, I prefer that they break the tie by playing a game of Magic: The Gathering. Type 1 rules, Gore uses the Cadaverous Bloom/Natural Order deck and Bush uses the Arcadian Academy/Mind over Matter/Stroke of Genius deck.

[Alzarian]

Interesting to note, but there was a time in our nation's history when the Speaker of the House became President, even though it was just for one day. I forget the details, but basically, back in the nineteenth century, new Presidents were sworn in on March 4th. It just so happened that in one particular year, this day fell on a Sunday, and as the incoming president was a very religious man, he postponed his innauguration until Monday, March 5th. Since the previous president's reign ended on the 3rd, our country was faced with one full day in which there was no official president. By laws of succession, the president for that day was the current Speaker of the House.

In answer to the question as to whether or not Bill Clinton could ever be VP, the answer is surprisingly yes, but only under certain conditions. It is my understanding that no one can serve as president for more than ten years. This is why Johnson was able to run for President in 1968, if he had chosen to, since he had only served a little over a year before the election of 1964.

Now I could be wrong, but should Lieberman for whatever reason resign the office of VP after serving two years, Bill Clinton could conceivable be appointed the new VP, because even if something untoward were to happen to Gore, Clinton could safely serve out the remainder of Gore's term as President and not reach the ten year mark.

This is all very well and good in theory, but since the Congress would have to vote approval for whomever Gore picks, it is unlikely he would pick Clinton. Bill may just have to wait until President Hillary's term, to move back into the White House.

[Chronos]

Alzarian, neither of your scenarios works. First of all, the Speaker (what was his name) didn't take the Oath, either, so if that's a requirement for a person to "be President", then there was no president on that day, period. If that's not a requirement, then it was the incoming President.
A cursory glance at the actual Constitution shows the problem in your second scenario. It doesn't just say "a total of ten years", it says "two full term following up to two years holding the office having succeeded from VP" (not exact quote, I don't have my copy handy). In other words, the two years must be before the regular terms, and Clinton's already had his two regular terms. It is possible that Lieberman (or Cheney, as currently seems more likely) will serve ten years.

And capacitor, I like your suggestion, if only because Dubya is more likely to refuse to play, on the grounds that it's Satanic :)

[BobT]

Alzarian get your urban legend facts right. The acting president you speak of, David Atchison, was actually the Senate President Pro Tem, who was the next in line in 1849, when Zachary Taylor was sworn in.

Cecil has a column on this topic http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_133.html

The Speaker of the House wasn't moved up in the batting order for presidential succession until 1946 or so, when Truman asked Congress to change the order.

[Alzarian]

Dick Cheney's residency status is currently in question, as there is a lawsuit claiming he is a resident of Texas, and not of Wyoming. The 12th ammendment prohibits electors from voting in both a president and vice-president from the same state.

If the electors are indeed forbidden to vote in Cheney, who would GWB appoint as his replacement? Or would Lieberman have a shot at the job, since Bush is the great uniter and all.

[wring]

Frankly I think that suit will go nowhere. People (well, not folks like me who can't afford it, but other people) may own more than one piece of property.

For "legal residence" status, there's all sorts of qualifications, like how much time they spend where (and in Cheney's case he's been in hotels mostly of late), and where does one work, pay taxes etc. Problem is most of those types of things (pay taxes etc) are in the past (he hasn't filed yet this year), so he could have legally "moved" as it were. And the work etc, well, he's been on the road mostly since he was nominated. So I doubt that anything will come of that.

Obviously, since he changed his "legal residence" in what was it June or July?, this issue was foreseen and handled. Nothing necessarily illegal or immoral or whatever in this, IMHO.

[BobT]

Presumably, Congress would decide whether or not to accept any disputed electoral votes from Texas. I'm betting that Congress won't reject any votes from Texas because of any residency problem.

The residency requirement was only added to the Constitution because the Framers thought that the Electors would only vote for people from their own state. Then it would be unlikely that anyone would ever be able to claim a majority or be nationally accepted.

I don't see any great consistutional crisis because Bush and Cheney both live in Texas.
There would be a bigger constitutional crisis if Bush were elected president and Lieberman vice-president.

It takes both Houses of Congress to reject any electoral votes.

[Beadalin]

The thread for far-fetched election questions

<hijack>
I have been around these boards WAY too long. I actually read this thread title as "The thread for far-felched election questions." What is wrong with me?
</hijack>

[Chronos]

Nothing's wrong with you, Beadalin. The problem is with everyone who didn't read the topic that way, as that's a sure sign that those people don't spend enough time here :)

[Enderw24]

What if there was a presidential election that was so close, both parties were only a few votes off the required 270 electoral votes to take the presidency? What if there were one or two states, the deciding states mind you, that, out of the millions of votes cast, put the candidates within a few hundred to a few thousand votes of each other? What steps would we take to ensure that the president is elected in a fair and lawful manner?

And don't tell me that this situation could [i]never[i/] occur because there's always a chance!

[neuroman]

What if a crazed sheriff in West Palm Beach had walked into a voting precinct or three, guns blazing, and burned several ballot boxes?

Obviously the crazed sheriff would be imprisoned if Gore won and serve as national security advisor if Bush won, but what would happen to the votes? Tough nuggets? Would anyone from the precinct(s) be allowed to revote?

(I'm assuming that the votes were burned after they were cast but before any initial tallying.)

[manhattan]

I'm bumping this because of a new rash of election questions. I'm not closing the others, since this had sunk pretty low in the forum listing.

But in the future, out of consideration for your fellow members, please please please put your election questions in this thread.

Thank you.

[Boris B]

This isn't a question, it's more of an excuse to help manhattan keep this thread at the top.

Bush Lieberman 2000!
Assuming Flordia does eventually go to Bush, and assuming Florida does not have a law requiring electors to vote for the (Vice) Presidential candidate to whom they're pledged*, two (just 2!) Florida electors should defect - from Bush & Cheney to Bush & Lieberman.
Consider it for a second. It solves several problems:

1. Disputed popular returns in Florida (and possibly other states).
In these situations, it is often most acceptable to reach some sort of political compromise. Obviously only one party can win the Presidency, but two offices are being selected here. The whole Florida electoral slate would still be loyal to Bush, and the vast majority would be loyal to the whole ticket, but two of them would respond to the concerns of Florida Democrats over vote-counting by giving the nod to the Lieberman.

2. Cheney's health problems.
"Minor" is obviously a relative term when followed "heart attack". Cheney has had several. Sure, having a VP of a different party than the Presidency is going to create some unease, but having a VP have heart attacks occasionally will create its own unease.

3. Disputes over Cheney's true residency.
If he's really from Texas, well, that would be a big Constitutional problem.

Okay, now to answer the possible problems with this whacky proposal:

A. Coalition government! Stalemates over policy!
No, there wouldn't be any. The Vice Presidency has no power to veto Presidential decisions or pick cabinet members, although there'd be nothing to prevent Bush from consulting him (Republicans got along with L. pretty well in the Senate.) The Vice President hass three substantive roles, as I see it:
Casting the tie-breaking vote in the Senate
Serving on the governing board of the Smithsonian Institution
Serving on the National Security Council
Clinton has head a Republican on his National Security Council (Defense Secretary Cohen; I'm talking about statutory members of the council, not staff to the council); Franklin Roosevelt had a Republican Secretary of War for some time. So there is precedent for it.

B. Republicans wouldn't want to give up a vote in the Senate.
Lieberman would (if he accepted higher office) vacate his Senate seat, his successor being chosen by Connecticut's Republican governor. By making Lieberman VP, the Republicans would be gaining a normal vote at the cost of a casting vote. So in purely strategic terms, it would be an increase in Republican power in the Senate.

C. There's no historical precedent for it.
Sure there is. Jefferson was Adams' VP, for different reasons, and that worked okay. I don't think either of them liked it though.

D. Lieberman would be forced to support policies he's totally against.
He wouldn't be forced to do anything. He could keep his mouth shut if he wanted to. Besides, Gore's pretty moderate as Democrats go, and Lieberman is to the right of Gore, and Bush isn't super-conservative anyway.

E. You can't vote for a President of one party and a VP of another!
Says who? If there's some law against it, I don't know it. Just because voters can't do it, doesn't mean electors can't.

F. It's a bad idea to have members of different parties in the line of succession.
Maybe, but the number two person in the line of succession is the Speaker of the House, who is not guaranteed to be of the same party as the President (usually the opposite, in recent years). Only when you get back to the cabinet, starting with the number four in the line, does it become likely again that the successor will be of the same party as the President. (Bit of trivia: three out of the top five people in the current line of succession are Republicans (Hastert, Thurmond, and Cohen; only Gore and Summer belong to the President's party).

I call this a whacky proposal because I know it's not going to happen. I mean, I think lots of people would hate it, and four years is a long time to live with an experiment. And of course there is no reason why a couple of Florida Republicans picked for absolute party loyalty would want to please Democrats at the cost of the second-highest office in the land. I thought this proposal up mainly as a joke, but I'm starting to see real merits in it as time goes. Which shows you that I'm a good propagandist and/or very gullible.

*Actual question: does Florida have such a law? Some states do, some don't.

[Boris B]

Forget my reference to Roosevelt's Secretary of War. I just got carried away. At least it is a precedent for bipartisanship in defense matters in general.

[BobT]

I think the best the Democrats could hope for from Bush would be a token Cabinet appointment like Hayes gave out in 1876. He appointed a Democrat Postmaster General.

His bigger concession was ending the Federal occupation of the South which propped up the Republican state governments in the old Confederacy.

Florida electors have to take a pledge to vote for their party's candidate. (Section 103.021(1)) However, most think that such pledges are unenforceable and most don't have any punitive measures attached.

If you really want to carry the bipartisanship/coalition idea further, remember that FDR appointed a Republican, Harlan Stone to be Chief Justice.

I doubt Bush would appoint a prominent liberal Democratic judge if given the opportunity.