# An election conundrum **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 24, 2004, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-election-conundrum/236218 "2004-03-24T22:52:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-election-conundrum/236218/1 "2004-03-24T22:52:59Z")
This of course is hypothetical… Let’s suppose, for all us lefties here, that on Oct 28th undeniable eveidence turns up that shows Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen yet he let it happen… For the righties…on Oct 29th, Kerry is caught in bed with a male campaign worker… Whichever case they are so embarrassed that they remove themselves from the race. What would happen? It’s to late for either party to get a new name on the ballot. Would it just be the one left and the independents? Keep in mind that not all of the independents will be on the ballot in every state. As far as I know it’s not covered in the constitution. What will happen? What should happen? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-election-conundrum/236218/2 "2004-03-24T23:17:12Z")
It would be too late at that point for either Kerry or Bush to withdraw from the ballot, because the ballots have already been printed and absentee ballots mailed out, so, even though the candidate announces that he’s no longer running, his name is still going to be on the ballot. What could happen is that the party could name a new candidate, then, assuming that the candidate who withdrew won the election, his electors could vote for the new candidate. Some states have faithless elector laws, but I really don’t see them being enforced in a case like this. ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-election-conundrum/236218/3 "2004-03-24T23:29:50Z")
I find it hard to believe that a vote for one man can be transferred to another. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-election-conundrum/236218/4 "2004-03-24T23:35:01Z")
> [@Reeder](#): > > I find it hard to believe that a vote for one man can be transferred to another. But you aren’t voting for Bush or Kerry, you are voting for electors who are pledged to vote for Bush or Kerry. If either of them drop out of the race, the electors presumably (open to lots of discussion here) are free to vote their own minds. Since that was the original intent of the Electoral College, it seems perfectly constitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-election-conundrum/236218/5 "2004-03-24T23:35:07Z")
Well, you’re not voting for Bush or Kerry. You’re voting for Bush or Kerry’s electors, and according to both the Constitution and federal law, electors are free to vote for whomever they want. There are some state laws that limit that freedom. Alternatively, what could happen is that the president gets elected and sworn in, and then his first action upon being sworn in would be to resign, and the vice president becomes president. ---
**Author:** ![Gone4Subs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gone4Subs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gone4Subs)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-election-conundrum/236218/6 "2004-03-24T23:38:33Z")
> [@Reeder](#): > > This of course is hypothetical… > > Let’s suppose, for all us lefties here, that on Oct 28th undeniable eveidence turns up that shows Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen yet he let it happen… > > For the righties…on Oct 29th, Kerry is caught in bed with a male campaign worker… > > Whichever case they are so embarrassed that they remove themselves from the race. > > What would happen? What I’m going to do anyway … Vote for Nader. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-election-conundrum/236218/7 "2004-03-24T23:46:37Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > Well, you’re not voting for Bush or Kerry. You’re voting for Bush or Kerry’s electors, and according to both the Constitution and federal law, electors are free to vote for whomever they want. **There are some state laws that limit that freedom.** My bolding. You might want to do some research on that. IIRC, more states than not require the electors to vote for whom the voters selected. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-election-conundrum/236218/8 "2004-03-24T23:51:25Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > My bolding. You might want to do some research on that. IIRC, more states than not require the electors to vote for whom the voters selected. Would you prefer I said “Most state laws limit that freedom”? I still say that if the situation described in the OP happened, most of those laws wouldn’t be really enforced ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-election-conundrum/236218/9 "2004-03-24T23:52:19Z")
## I say Congress should move the general election back a few weeks. There is plenty of time for new candidates to be selected and judged and ballots reprinted and a vote held before the Electors meet to make things official. > [@Telemark](#): > > …the electors presumably (open to lots of discussion here) are free to vote their own minds. > > Since that was the original intent of the Electoral College, it seems perfectly constitutional. ## As I have already pointed out not just [once](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=241963&highlight=electoral+college) but [twice](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=244298&highlight=electoral+college) in the last month there is no historical reason to assume, as so many do, that Electors were intended to choose the the chief executive wisely and independently. Some even question whether the Electors were intended to choose the President at all, see _Creating the Constitution_ by Thornton Anderson. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-election-conundrum/236218/10 "2004-03-24T23:55:53Z")
And according to this website, it isn’t “most”. It says that 24 states have laws requiring electors to vote for who the voters selected. > **[Faithless Electors - Fairvote](https://www.fairvote.org/faithless_electors_old)** > > electors, faithless electors ---
**Author:** ![RTA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b4bc9f/32.png) [@RTA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTA)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-election-conundrum/236218/11 "2004-03-26T00:49:15Z")
Up front it would seem apparent that more voters are tolerant of, to paraphrase the old saying, a “live boy”, than they would be if the Bush administration were to crack wide open as having been permissive towards the idea of a terror attack on US soil. That there would be benefits to such a thing as far as political currency and opportunities to forward their agenda, etc. In any case I think that the Democrats would rally around the Kerry ticket and naturally defer to whoever the VP candidate will be - a person who will be carefully selected to serve in Kerry’s place if anything bad ever happens. In the Republicans’ place if, as **Reeder** hypothesizes for this discussion, Bush had known something about 9/11, it seems natural to think that Cheney would have most certainly known more. So in this case the VP candidate would not be a viable alternative politically and the ticket would go forward as “printed” (an increasingly quaint term in this new era of voting on computer screens, where candidate names can be changed with relative ease). Should this utterly disgraced ticket get elected through some miracle - maybe in the swing states and their Diebold machines - look for Cheney to resign (from his jail cell) while the GOP tries to choose between Frist, Jeb, or some other like tool as a marketable concept. (What would I be doing? Rioting, of course!) ---
**Author:** ![flight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbce88/32.png) [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-election-conundrum/236218/12 "2004-03-26T02:25:54Z")
Is anyone else interested in seeing this happen?